Evolution & Gaspole

Great Debates
1

This tread is the continuation of http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=49099
Man, I do not know who misspelled what, but I am less than a perfect typist is. You can:

  1. Do the proofreading yourself or by a pro proofreader or
  2. Provide “editing” feature here or
  3. Provide a "spellchecker” or
  4. All of the above or
  5. Close the whole MB or individual misspelled posts.

Gaspole, below is what I found about the Manx cat:

http://www.fanciers.com/breed-
The truth is that short-tailed and tailless cat are seen the world over, the result of a genetic mutation. Japanese Bobtails have short kinked tails and a less stocky body than the Manx. Other breeds of cats occasionally produce a kitten with a missing tail. The Manx, however, is the only cat that is bred to be tailless.
faqs/manx-faq.html#mythology
Manx Syndrome is a normally fatal defect caused by the so-called Manx gene, which causes the taillessness. The gene’s action in shortening the spine may go too far, resulting in severe spinal defects–a gap in the last few vertebrae, fused vertebrae, or spina bifida in newborns. If there is no obvious problem with a Manx Syndrome kitten at birth, the difficulties will show up in the first few weeks or months of the cat’s life, usually in the first four weeks, but sometimes as late as four months. It is often characterized by severe bowel and/or bladder dysfunction, or by extreme difficulty in walking.
Breeders of Manx will generally not let kittens leave the cattery until they have reached four months of age because of the possibility of Manx Syndrome appearing. In most cases, however, experience will point to a problem in a kitten long before the kit is four months old. Rarely will a breeder have no suspicion of anything wrong and have the Manx Syndrome appear.
Manx Syndrome may occur even in a carefully bred litter, but is more likely in the instance when a rumpy is bred to a rumpy in or beyond the third generation. For this reason, the breeder carefully tracks rumpy to rumpy breedings, and uses tailed Manx regularly in the breeding program. Generally speaking, a sound breeding between a tailed Manx and a rumpy Manx should produce a litter that is 50% tailed and 50% rumpy, but as we know, what should happen and what does happen are many times two different things. Usually, however, one may rely on this percentage. As long as litters are produced in which all tail lengths appear, the breeder may feel that the breeding program is on track.
Manx litters tend toward the small side in numbers, both because of Manx Syndrome and because of the short back of the queen, which leaves less room for large numbers of kittens. A typical Manx litter will be 3 or 4 kittens–more than that could crowd the kits and a female who has a history of large litters needs careful observation during pregnancy to see that all goes well. A sensible precaution with expectant Manx queens is to have the vet x-ray or ultra-sound her a couple of weeks before the due date, to determine the number of kits to expect.
Most breeders will have the tails of Manx kits docked at 4-6 days of age. This is not so much for cosmetic reasons as it is to stave off another manifestation of the Manx gene. In adult cats of around 5 years, the tail vertebrae may become ossified and arthritic, resulting in pain for the cat. The pain may grow so severe that amputation is necessary–a difficult operation for an adult cat. It is much less painful and recovery is much swifter for a very young kitten to have its tail.

It confirms what I said. Cats do not “loose” their tail. They can be born without one due to mutation. Apparently, “taillessness” does not have 100% penetrance; it can be maintained artificially. No amount of tail stretching or tail cutting will cause the progeny’s tails to be longer or shorter.
Rather then answering each other’s points individually, I restate mine once again. I do not introduce anything new, just repeat what was said by C. Darwin and R.A. Wallace long ago. My points are so unoriginal, that it is hard to find references. (Sorry to repeat myself, but it is hard to prove that the Earth is rotating around the Sun and is round)

  1. Acquired traits are not inherited.
    I can actually stop here, as all other points are corollaries. If you believe that we are born with a finite amount of bone and muscle, how can you believe that that increased protein intake can increase muscle mass? Vigorous exercise will, but it will not be inherited. The amount of fat can be increased by caloric intake. A 100-lbs woman may become 300-lbs one, but her child will still weight 8-lbs or so at birth, not 24-lbs. Lack of vit.D may produce rickets in an individual. His children will be born normal or with rickets. Normal intake of vit.D will cure them. Albinism is caused by a mutation(s):
    http://www.cbc.umn.edu/iac/facts.htm#whatis
    which may or may not be passed to the next generation.

In general, if you agree that the acquired traits are not inherited, you must accept the corollary: the environment cannot change the inherited traits. Any characteristic which is amenable to change, e.g., weight, will not be passed to the next generation. Spontaneous mutations occur all the time. If the new traits are inheritable, they may become wide spread in the future generations, if they are advantageous for the survival of the species.

Any theory must be accepted as a whole. Any theory will not work if applied partially. Again, this is so common, that I can’t confirm it with references. I just know that. Sorry.

2

peace, the proper phrasing for the above statement is, “Acquired traits are not inheritable.”

3

Actually, mauve dog[ (whom I hereby nominate for the Needle in the Haystack award for digging the deepest for the tiniest nitpick), it should more properly be heritable.

4

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=33635

5

If a rat “aquires” a huge ear on its back is that inheritable?:slight_smile:

To make it inheritable you would simply have to damage the proper genes to destroy it. Which, while not as simple as cutting of a tail probably will be possible with viruses if we can ever engineer them.

6

Sorry, lissener, but wrong on both counts. First, the easy one: inheritable and heritable are synonyms. My usage is correct.

Now, for the less obvious one: to state that “acquired traits are not inherited” is redundant. If the trait is acquired, it was obviously not inherited, and if it is inherited, there is no need to “acquire” it. Such a statement says nothing useful.

However, saying “acquired traits are not inheritable” means that traits (e.g., bobbed tails) that are acquired cannot be passed on to their offspring, which appears to be the central theme to peace’s post; I don’t see how correcting the terminology in such a critical phrase is nitpicking, nor is it digging deeply to find it.

However, I will accept the nomination, since it would be my first on the SDMB :smiley:

7

…Or rather, what I meant to say was:

“However, saying ‘acquired traits are not inheritable’ means that traits (e.g., bobbed tails) that are acquired by an individual cannot be passed on to its offspring…”

8

I almost dread stepping in here, but it appears that there is some “talking past” each other and this will be a more interesting discussion if everyone is on the same page:

peace:

This is basically in response to the question Gaspode posed on 12-04-2000 10:27 PM:

The topic is (loosely) nature vs nurture. Gaspode’s points are that 20th century people tend to be larger than 12th century people but that the difference is not due to genetic drift. The generally accepted reason given for this change in size is not genetic adaptation for height and breadth, but an increase in the variety and quality of food. If a 12th century baby were fed a 20th century diet, the child would more than likely grow up to tower over his or her parents and sibs (and would avoid rickets and a host of other problems).
We are certainly born with a finite amount of muscle and bone, but the way that that muscle and bone increases as we get older is a function (to a great degree) of diet. (Otherwise, we would all be 6 or 8 pound, 20" long people for life.) Genetics does play a part in determining the limits to which we may grow (my Dad’s parents were 6’3" and 5’10" and raised six kids who ranged from 6’0" to 6’6"–including the daughter–while my Mom’s 5’6" and 5’2" parents raised six kids, of whom the tallest boy was 5’8"). However, when viewing entire populations, we see that nutrition does have a general effect on adult size.

Gaspode’s original statement was

italics mine
It looks to me that on this point you both actually agree, but are siezing specific phrases to challenge in the other’s presentation.
I would challenge this statement as it is currently worded, peace:

The last sentence is true. The first two sentences overstate the case. A mutation that results in a non-harmful loss may very well be carried forth. Similarly, a mutation that does not confer an immediate advantage may very well be carried forth provided that it does not lessen the chance of survival. Lactose tolerance in adults has either developed among some populations or been lost by other populations. It does not threaten an individual, so both tolerance and intolerance have been passed on. Male facial hair is not necessary to individual survival and its presence or absence has been passed on in many populations.
Genetic changes are eliminated when they cause a direct disadvantage. Genetic changes that cause a direct benefit will be passed on. However, a large range of “neutral” changes go on all the time with being selected for or against.

9

So a cat born without a tail hasn’t lost it’s tail?
Lose: be deprived of or cease to retain or have something. (New Oxford Dictionary of English)
Does a cat born without a tail still retain a tail? Surely the cat has lost it’s tail when compared to it’s ancestors?

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/earth.html
That was the top of my list when I did a search with Alta Vista. There are 73,372 more. Not real hard to provide a reference. So you have absolutely no evidence available yet still insist on refuting my statements. Until you can provide references for statements like
If a species loose the tail, it becomes a different species/subspecies

could you please refrain from stating them as fact and attempting to use them in to refute my points. It’s resolves nothing and does nothing to enlighten anyone of the facts, merely promotes your beliefs.

(Reference please) Surely once a trait is acquired genetically it is then passed on. I think what you mean is non-genetically-acquired traits are not inherited. Haemophilia for example is acquired as a result of genetic deviation from the norm, and is definitely inherited. Someone had to be the first haemophiliac, someone had to acquire this trait. To take it to a more individual specific level, if I genetically manipulate a zygote to produce haemophilia that zygote has acquired the trait, and it will be passed on.

Oh I do, I do. This has nothing to do with what we were discussing, which was that it is possible for humans to influence the current phenotype of the domestic dog and vice versa.

Of course many people know that a big man with a beard created the Earth in seven days. They find it hard to provide evidence to support their assumption. It appears you cannot either, and are therefore simply expressing a religious/philosophical belief. While your belief may be correct I find it difficult to understand how you can feel so sure of yourself that you are prepared to publicly correct those who disagree with you based on nothing more substantial that ** “I just know that”**.
Not good science
Not good manners.
Good bye.

10

I accept: My “Acquiered traits…” was not the best phrase and I remove it from the annual “The Sentence of the Year” contest. It was not my best, grammatically and semantically. What I meant, I illustrated more than once with almost vulgar examples (fat mother, etc.). I cannot see how the dog can influence man’s evolution. I accept the critique of Mr. Gaspole and others: some of the terms were used rather loosely. Perhaps, I used them as professional or scintigic terms rather than sticking to standard EOD definition. For instance, “acquired” is meant as “features which were added/removed during life”, e.g., in circumcized male. If Gaspole prefers terminology like “someone had to aquire this trait” in reference to hemophilia, I"ll leave it to him. To me, it’s “an inherited” trait, although I understand that the gene was “acguired” from parents. “Acguired” is never used in biology in this sense; “passed” or “inherited” is conventional. Many (most) mutations must be, in his terms, be “acquired” from nature, as they are spontaneous and were not present in parents. More or less the same with “to loose”. For instance, “lost vision” is reserved for people who were born able to see. People born unable to see are called “congenitally blind”.
Tom (say hello to Debb, Tom) gave a good example, from his family: the height is influenced by many factors, many of which we do not know/understand; it is also also influenced by nurture. I would refrain from using words such as “greatly”, simply because they are hard to compare (it’s easier to use discreet features, like anosmia or “tailness”, i.e., with YES/NO quality), because we do not know, how “great” and many other reasons.
<<If a species loose the tail, it becomes a different species/subspecies >>
Presense or absense of the tail will makes two groups of animals sufficiently different to warrant separate specification. Often, the external differences are very subtle.
Finally, I found the reference: Charles Darwin. On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection. London, 1859.

11

OK, so you didn’t understand what I wrote originally. You could have just said in the first place. I’m happy to explain again.
A human domesticates a dog. This primitive man has large sinuses and other features necessary for smell that make generation of complex sounds difficult if not impossible. Added to this a large area of the brain is devoted to an olfactory centre. This requires energy to run. He keeps his dog and breeds from it. He also has three male children One of these children acquires genes that prevent the large sinuses etc form developing, and can articulate what he means far more clearly than his brothers. The same child also has a smaller olfactory centre due to mutation. The other children have the same basic physical structure as their father. All children inherit domestic dogs from their father (not genetic inheritance obviously). A drought comes, food is in short supply. All children are perilously malnourished, yet all are equally able to smell out food, even the ‘deformed’ child because he has a dog. Unfortunately the excess energy required to run a large olfactory centre night and day causes one of the ‘normal’ children to expire.
The drought passes, the children enter adulthood and the two boys are both courting the beautiful and fertile Ogg. The ‘deformed’ boy sings her beautiful love songs. The ‘normal’ child grunts and screeches at her. The deformed boy wins her heart (and other body parts).
A question Peace.
Which of the three sons has the greater reproductive advantage:
(a) With a domesticated dog?
(b) Without a domesticated dog?

Has the dog influenced the evolution of our small family group?

I personally think it was more elegantly worded here

**
But sometimes these things need to be explained more clearly and with examples of our reasoning.

Actually what you mean is ‘acquired character’ is never used in this sense. Acquired is an English word and biologists put no particular restrictions on its use. Even with acquired character this is only true in genetics, and only then when referring to individual organisms. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to populations or species acquiring traits. At least my copy of Henderson’s puts no particular emphasis on acquire, but does have a definition of acquired character peculiar to individuals, and I have seen acquire used in relation to populations numerous times.

My god is that a concession.

That’s a pretty big leap from your original blanket refutation

For the third time, do you have a reference for this stuff? Has anyone else seen a reference for this, or even heard anything like it before?

Could you please quote this and give a chapter? What is it a reference for? You have asserted several times now that presence or absence of a tail warrants separate species status. Can you give me an example of two species where the only difference is a tail? The stumpy cattle dog remains Canis familiaris, the Manx remains Felis cattus.

Interestingly I did find one quote from Charles Darwin, who you have mentioned several times in support of your assertions. Compare:

“If we suppose any habitual action to become inherited – and I think it can be shown that this does sometimes happen- then the resemblance between what originally was a habit and an instinct becomes so close as not to be distinguished…… As modifications of corporeal structure arise from, and are increased by, use or habit, and are diminished or lost by disuse, so do I not doubt that it has been with instincts.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 1859. (The chapter is ‘Instinct’ if you want it)

and

Peace, SDMB, 2000.

Now of course this type of Lamarckian theory is not accepted by many (if any) scientists today. However you should be careful, Peace, that the expert authority you off-handedly refer to actually agrees with what you have said. I suppose it also shows that any reference to ‘The Origin of Species’ is of fairly dubious value. The book is almost 150 years old and has been greatly superseded.

Can I please have at least one reference Peace. I can die happy then.

PS Is your constant mis-spelling of my name meant to be some sort of jibe, or are you functionally illiterate/dyslexic? I find it hard to believe a typing error accounted for the same mistake so many times. If you are handicapped I apologise wholeheartedly.

12

loose, used as a verb: to set free

lose, verb: to suffer loss or deprivation

(There was a thread on this very subject in the BBQ Pit in the last week or so.)

Gaspode, a poster to the SDMB

Gaspole, (an as yet unidentified word or name)

13

[QUOTE**
Man, I do not know who misspelled what, but I am less than a perfect typist is. You can:

  1. Do the proofreading yourself or by a pro proofreader or
  2. Provide “editing” feature here or
  3. Provide a "spellchecker” or
  4. All of the above or
  5. Close the whole MB or individual misspelled posts.
    **[/QUOTE]

Well Tom, that’s the response the last bloke got.
Thanks for the further hints though.

14

Damn these things go through quick when you hit ‘Submit’ instead of ‘Preview’.

15

Gaspode, my apologies for misspeling your name/handle: instead of copy/paste I typed it. Then I retyped the misspelled letters. No intend.
Your hypothetical example with dogs’ sinuses is so far-fetched, that I still marvel at some people’s imagination (not yours, the original author’s). I guess, his suggestion is possible on biological grounds. With a few caveats: sinuses have nothing to do with smell nor speach; smelling is not crucial (and never was) to human and/or canine survival; the mere fact that something does not contradict the laws of nature, does not, in itself, proves its existence. If he seriously insists on his hypothesis, I’d like to see at least some prove (for instance, any evidence that human olfactory brain centers were at any point larger or better developed than they are today; cf. fossil skulls show that the cortex was less expressed then that it is in the modern humans As far as I know, there is no evidence that Homo sapiens {not other “ancestor” species} has bigger noses, or olfactory bulbs, or olfactoty gyri, etc. So, I do not understand the need to invent something to exolain a non-existing phenomenon. Correct me if I miss something here).
The definition of “species” is here:
http://www.fws.gov/r3pao/eco_serv/endangrd/glossary/index.html
Species - From Section 3(15) of the Federal Endangered Species Act: “The term ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any * distinct population* segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” A population of individuals that are more or less alike, and that are able to breed and produce fertile offspring under natural conditions.
1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
and Thesaurus)
emphasis mine-Peace
Of course, there is nothing about tails, by I think that “tailness” makes one species look sufficiently distinct
from another. The lack of tail in some individuals of Felix catus with Manx syndrome does not make a different species of course, as inability to grow head hear does not remove our bald friends from the species Homo sapiens. But if all members of Felix catus had no tails or all zebras were checkered instead of striped (and, presumably, could not interbreed), they would have belonged to different species. In other words, mild variations are common; significant ones, especially if accompanied by breeding inabilities, warrant separate specifications. Biologists argue about these issues even now. (for instance, are all wild horses, including Przhevalski horse, belong to the same species?)

I do not want to see you die, happy or unhappy. But I’ll provide the reference:
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
True, it’s old. But still true. I would not say that it was “superseded”. Just that many facts there was amended and refined.

16

Here we go again.

My god, is that another concession? Firstly I’m not talking about dogs’ sinuses. Even if I were this is a long way from “but I know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including “unique facial/pharyngeal structures” . Nor did they loose the ability to smell.” The fact that something is so wondrous to your intellect as to cause you to marvel at it does not make it wrong. Nor is it grounds in either polite or scientific societies to challenge what someone has asserted.
In future you may want to be certain that you understand what someone has posted before disputing it. You’ll find we’re a pretty friendly bunch around here, and if you just ask for clarification rather than immediately disputing what you hear you may learn some interesting things (I know I have).

**
“The mucous membrane in the caudal part of the nasal cavity contains the sensory endings of the olfactory (I cranial) nerve, and these extend some way into the sinus cavity”
Fransdon, R.D., ‘Anatomy and Physiology of Farm Animals’
Do you have any evidence this wasn’t the case in primitive humans? For that matter I have seen no evidence it isn’t the case in modern humans. Since you have made so many other obviously flawed and unsubstantiated statements to date I am disinclined to believe this one. Reference please.

**
Reference please. I can think of numerous examples where smell would be crucial to an individual’s survival. Secondly in the example given above I never said it was crucial to human survival. Where the hell did you get the idea that a trait had to be crucial to an individual’s survival to become widespread in a population. According to current evolutionary theory any trait that confers any reproductive advantage will become widespread. Having hair isn’t crucial to human survival, but it confers some reproductive advantage and so is passed on. I think Tomndebb addressed this fairly well above. Methinks you impose too many of your own presuppositions on what others have written.

**
Where do I start?
Firstly this isn’t my argument. Take it up with the author. Nor is my hypothesis necessarily the same as his. It is based entirely on memory and my own general knowledge (which can however be substantiated). It is merely one hypothesis I can suggest that responds to your statement that you couldn’t see any way that dogs could influence human evolution.
Secondly you challenged the original hypothesis with the sweeping statement “but I know that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including “unique facial/pharyngeal structures” . Nor did they loose the ability to smell”. I couldn’t let that past unchallenged. Had you posted some sort of intelligent comment like the one quoted immediately above in the first place you would have had no argument from me. If you read the post you originally took exception to you will actually find a quote from me stating pretty much the same as what you said: Humans have largely lost the ability to smell. In fact most primates have, one of my problems with the original theory, but humans moreso than most. Not that this allows me to ‘know’ that dogs didn’t cause humans to develop anything. It simply leads me to suspect the theory and gives me initial grounds for refuting it without making sweeping generalisations based personal opinion and philosophical belief.

**
Again with the ‘I think’. It is exceedingly bad manners to make statements like “I know” and “If a species loose the tail, it becomes a different species/subspecies” in direct contradiction to what someone has said when all it is really based on is “I think”, “I believe” and “I just know that”. In polite conversation it is usual to state at the outset that what you are about to say is merely opinion and conjecture so as not cause offence.
Eg. "but I believe that dogs or anything else in the environment did not cause humans to develop anything, including "unique facial/pharyngeal structures. Nor am I convinced that they lost the ability to smell." This is far more palatable, less likely to cause offence, and does not require you to try to back up your statements when you are unable or unprepared to do so.

I’m not sure what relevance a legislative definition of species has. I’d prefer my good old Britannica definition. Legislative definitions don’t always agree with the actual. They are there for clarification in the case of legal disputes. Having said that I still don’t see anything there that even implied that “Presence or absence of the tail will makes two groups of animals sufficiently different to warrant separate specification.”. If this is your only reference then I’m far from willing to believe the assertion. If you are simply basing it on the ‘distinct population segment’ reference then I guess that any breed could be defined as a species. I’m not willing to buy that in any context, bar a court case being heard under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

**
This is again a great leap from Presence or absence of the tail will makes two groups of animals sufficiently different to warrant separate specification. Again we seem to have a concession, and again you seem unwilling to acknowledge the fact.
Having cleared up the point that Manx cats are not a separate species do you still wish to continue with your assertion "But a species does not loose anything", or are you willing to concede that this too may have been hasty and somewhat of a generalisation?

**
That link is simply to an online copy of “The Origin of Species”. Did you post the wrong link? As you should have guessed from the above post I own a copy of the original and have read it cover to cover, so this provides me with no new information whatsoever. As I stated above there is a section in there that is in direct contradiction to what you have written, but what assumption on your part is this ‘reference’ intended to support. I still don’t see any explanation of what the reference is to. Can you please give a quote that backs up something for which I have requested a reference? The mere existence of a work to which you have alluded does not constitute supporting argument or a referential cite.

It’s a little late for you now, but if you go back to the original post you’ll find a link to something that sounds similar to the original hypothesis.

17

Sorry, Gaspode. I check my mail several times a day, and still this post notification came today(?). It’s too late to answer now and we settled it, to a point. We mutually clarified and conceded many points. I guess, we agree, that the environment does not produce genetic changes which are passed to the next generation(s) (I am talking about somatic cells, of course).
The entire chapter of canines and the related one of canines and humans is fascinating and unprecedented, but it’s a separate topic.

18

We settled nothing! I concede nothing! The environment does produce genetic changes that are passed on to the next generation! Far from being a separate topic the entire history of human/canine relations is the entire point and sole topic, and the original thread in GQ is still open! My questions remain unanswered and my requests for references go unheeded! It is not too late to display some manners and state that all your points were based on speculation, assertion and a misinterpretation of the words of others if that is in fact the case. Further there is still plenty of time to apologise for refuting the statements of others without adequate understanding or information. If you believe that this is not the case then put up some facts and don’t put words in my mouth.

19

Sorry. I’ll try to correct myself. I’ll need some time to answer you the way you demand.

20

Ohhh, No-o-o-o-o-o, Mr. Bill!