Let's start at the beginning? maybe?

[YoursTrue]

It's possible to mathematically define the species concept using the kind of Matrix I constructed. Suppose we do not know how to distinguish living beings in terms of one or another species. What we could (theoretically) do is to sequence the genes of every living organism on the planet and create a giant gene matrix G, whose rows give the set of genes of each and every living thing. Now we can ask: Can we club together rows into various subgroups based on how similar or dissimilar the rows are?
Remember the row entries AikBik are giving you the set of 'i' genes present in the 'k'th living thing. Living things belonging to a species will have very very similar (nearly identical with a few variants here and there) set of row entries....while living things belonging to other species may have quite different row entry values. In linear algebra and data sciences there are quantitative ways to precisely quantify the similarity indices of different rows. And if we do this here, we will find that the rows can be naturally grouped into multiple "sub-matrices" whose internal row entries are very very similar to each other. These sub-matrices contain all the individual living things that can be classified as one "species" or "lineage".

This is way too deep for me now. But thanks, hope you have a good evening.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, but nitpicking right back at you, buuuuuuuuut........ Since we also use the "gene pool" statistically to determine ratios of p vs q in each generation, then ALL of the populous must be included, even if any one entity doesn't bring a new mutation to the table. Additionally, part and parcel of the discussion of evolution is just that, random mutations, in one person in the population, and how well that particular mutation gets passed on, to how many offspring, and their proportion of the following generations. They don't even have the new mutation in their own germline, but it exists due to an oddity of meiosis while generating a gamete.
/nitpick


Sure, but sometimes we will need to discuss bacteria, or fish, or balloons, etc... for analogies and for discussions of evolution. But for the gene pool, we can try to stick with the human gene pool.
It is a good basis to consider one specific species something wherein the members can breed with each other to make viable offspring. I.e. - offspring capable of siring/mothering others of their species.

OK, I'm still only on humans in the gene pool. I know bacteria inhabit human bodies, both good and bad bacteria, but I'm only asking now about the gene pool. Unless of course bacteria have a gene pool within the human gene pool.

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, starting again, because I think we've covered about as much as I could understand regarding the gene pool definitions (not enough though because I still don't understand it, but I'm moving on or trying to do so) -- back to Evolution 101:
"Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification."
(I understand that.)
" This definition encompasses everything from small-scale evolution (for example, changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next) to large-scale evolution (for example, the descent of different species from a shared ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the living world around us, as well as its history."
Oops. So now it got more complicated, again. What's "changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next.") Does that mean like dark hair or blue eyes for the small scale frequency? And large-scale of different species, such as fish to landlubbers?

An introduction to evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[LuisDantas]

So now, after the previous few posts, I'm thinking -- can a "gene pool" be within one organism? I mean like the last of the Neanderthals -- was a gene pool within him? (or her)

No. No individual of any species can ever contain a gene pool. That is just not how it works.

Gene pool are pools of (genetic) resources. They are collection of variations of specific genes (alleles) available in a population. Each individual can only have one allele for each gene (because he is just one individual).

As a very simplified and irrealistic but hopefully illustrative example, let's for the moment assume that in humans hair color is determined specific alleles in a certain gene - say, one allele each for black, brown, red, blond and white hair. Similarly, different alleles in a different gene determine eye color - one each for hazel, green, and blue.

That is not really how it works, but it is close enough for giving the general idea of alleles and how they relate to a gene pool.

Each individual in that population will have some allele in those respective genes.

A single individual could have, say, brown hair and hazel eyes. That makes him a part of his own gene pool and a representative of those two alleles. He is not a representative of the allele that result in blond hair, nor of that that results in blue eyes.

But other people in the same population (gene pool) might. If there are no people with those specific alleles in the population, then those alleles are lost, extinct. Future generations won't have them either, because there are no biological parents with those alleles to pass them down the generations. Genetic diversity was lost.

Similarly, if a separate population of genetically compatible people somehow makes contact with that original population, that might potentially change the gene pool; if there are new people with those "lost" colors of hair and eye irises, they may potentially reintroduce those alleles (by way of their offspring, of course).

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, I'm still only on humans in the gene pool. I know bacteria inhabit human bodies, both good and bad bacteria, but I'm only asking now about the gene pool. Unless of course bacteria have a gene pool within the human gene pool.

Bacteria have gene pools of their own, and they exist within humans. But those are entirely separate gene pools.

 

[YoursTrue]

Bacteria have gene pools of their own, and they exist within humans. But those are entirely separate gene pools.

OK. I'm not going any further with that now.
You also said,
"Gene pool are pools of (genetic) resources. They are collection of variations of specific genes (alleles) available in a population. Each individual can only have one allele for each gene (because he is just one individual)."
So it is basically within a similar population. I think. If I'm wrong about that, I'm really giving up this time.
Hope to continue the rest later -- this body needs to rest. Thanks again.

 

[LuisDantas]

What's "changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next.") Does that mean like dark hair or blue eyes for the small scale frequency? And large-scale of different species, such as fish to landlubbers?

An introduction to evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Yes, that is the gist of it.

Have you read the opportunity to read about Mendel's experiments with plants? I think that it may be really helpful here.

Some links that might prove useful:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/classical-genetics/mendelian--genetics/a/mendel-and-his-peas

 

[Heyo]

What's "changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next.") Does that mean like dark hair or blue eyes for the small scale frequency? And large-scale of different species, such as fish to landlubbers?

An introduction to evolution

evolution.berkeley.edu

Pretty much that.
An example for small scale (micro) evolution, would be the famous Peppered Moths. There are dark and light variants, dependent on the ecology, but the variants are still interfertile. The variants still exist together, just their frequency has changed.
Large scale (macro) evolution occurs when two populations have changed so much, that they are no longer interfertile. Examples for that are Ring Species. Ring species also show that macroevolution is simply repeated microevolution. After enough small changes, the difference gets so big that two populations can no longer interbreed.

 

[sayak83]

This is way too deep for me now. But thanks, hope you have a good evening.

Its very simple actually. If you sequence the genes of each and every living thing on earth and arrange all their genes in parallel rows....then we will see that the rows can be naturally clubbed into several groups based on how similar the genes are to each other. Each one of these groups represent a set of individuals that belong to a species.

 

[Pogo]

OK. I'm not going any further with that now.
You also said,
"Gene pool are pools of (genetic) resources. They are collection of variations of specific genes (alleles) available in a population. Each individual can only have one allele for each gene (because he is just one individual)."
So it is basically within a similar population. I think. If I'm wrong about that, I'm really giving up this time.
Hope to continue the rest later -- this body needs to rest. Thanks again.

You are getting closer and closer, however it turns out that we can have two versions of every gene in one member of a population.
Here is a not to serious video about the 19th century monk who figured this out years before anyone else did.

The Man Who Discovered Dominant & Recessive Genes: Meet Gregor Mendel​

 

[Pogo]

Its very simple actually. If you sequence the genes of each and every living thing on earth and arrange all their genes in parallel rows....then we will see that the rows can be naturally clubbed into several groups based on how similar the genes are to each other. Each one of these groups represent a set of individuals that belong to a species.

Now that we have inheritable traits I think it is time to bring in nested hierarchies not heirarchies as spell check just informed me.

"Heir" derives form the Latin, "heres" (meaning successor) via old French.
"Hierachy" derives form the Greek, "hierarkhēs" (meaning sacred ruler).Sep 19, 2015

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, you didn't confuse me, but the idea that fish evolved (changed eventually) to become human has no backup except in the mental gymnastics or imaginations of some men using fossils as proof of the conjecture. No evidence really. Because there is none.

Yes, evidence. Really. Just not for those unwilling or unable to assess its implications. You don't seem to be able to learn anything about evolution, but perhaps you can learn something about yourself. If you could understand that you are blind (metaphorically), you might stop saying that there is no light and change that to there is no light for you. That would be a step in the right direction.

Also, it might help you to realize that you will never learn the science, so why keep asking questions? Haven't you noticed that you've made no progress in months or years of asking questions like these? That's evidence, too, and a useful generalization should follow from noticing that and understanding the implication of it. If you noticed that, you could make a change for the better for yourself.

fish are still fish and I don't believe they are seen to be evolving, are they?

Why can't you answer that yourself by now? You ought to be able to do that, or at least anticipate the answer you will get.

 

[Astrophile]

Why do you call the use of the term kinds a side issue? Because that is one of the basic issues. As we are discussing, fish are still fish and I don't believe they are seen to be evolving, are they? And mudskippers remain as mudskippers. I imagine the excuse they're not seen to be evolving is because there's not enough time to see that.

Modern species of fish are different from the species of fish that existed during the Mesozoic era, and Mesozoic fish were different from Palaeozoic fish. Palaeozoic species of fish evolved into Mesozoic species of fish, and they evolved into Cenozoic species of fish, including those living today.

 

[Alien826]

@YoursTrue, I've read all the way through this thread, and I'm not even slightly surprised that you are confused.

Guys, the problem is that when she starts to get some concept, you immediately say something like "Yes, that close but it's not exactly correct", then go off into a complicated description of all the exceptions that exist. @YoursTrue is not studying for a PhD in biology. A good general overview would be a remarkable result. I know what's happening here, and it's good in other contexts. A scientist will recognize that a particular, fairly simplified definition of something is not totally accurate and will strive to define it in more detail. It's something I share so I'm not criticizing. If your audience is a beginner trying to grasp the basics though, it's counter productive. All you do is confuse the unfortunate person.

@YoursTrue, I recommend going for an understanding of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory without diving too deeply into the details. Gene pools are an example of something you could never get to and still understand evolution at a layman's level reasonably well. I would recommend Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene. It's all explained in simple terms and it gave me a great start in understanding the subject. Then, if you still want to, investigate some particular points that you find puzzling.

 

[YoursTrue]

Modern species of fish are different from the species of fish that existed during the Mesozoic era, and Mesozoic fish were different from Palaeozoic fish. Palaeozoic species of fish evolved into Mesozoic species of fish, and they evolved into Cenozoic species of fish, including those living today.

(righto...)

 

[YoursTrue]

You are getting closer and closer, however it turns out that we can have two versions of every gene in one member of a population.
Here is a not to serious video about the 19th century monk who figured this out years before anyone else did.

The Man Who Discovered Dominant & Recessive Genes: Meet Gregor Mendel​

I can only suppose that the population is changing (the genes, perhaps?) of young people because I heard a report that young people are getting diseases usually reserved for older ones because the eating habits of young people are so bad these days. (I'm think I'm giving up about figuring exactly how a certain "species" of fish became humans in the long run.) But thanks for offering your thoughts.

 

[Heyo]

@YoursTrue, I've read all the way through this thread, and I'm not even slightly surprised that you are confused.

Guys, the problem is that when she starts to get some concept, you immediately say something like "Yes, that close but it's not exactly correct", then go off into a complicated description of all the exceptions that exist. @YoursTrue is not studying for a PhD in biology. A good general overview would be a remarkable result. I know what's happening here, and it's good in other contexts. A scientist will recognize that a particular, fairly simplified definition of something is not totally accurate and will strive to define it in more detail. It's something I share so I'm not criticizing. If your audience is a beginner trying to grasp the basics though, it's counter productive. All you do is confuse the unfortunate person.

@YoursTrue, I recommend going for an understanding of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory without diving too deeply into the details. Gene pools are an example of something you could never get to and still understand evolution at a layman's level reasonably well. I would recommend Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene. It's all explained in simple terms and it gave me a great start in understanding the subject. Then, if you still want to, investigate some particular points that you find puzzling.

I don't know if The Selfish Gene is particularly good for beginners, I'd usually recommend one of two approaches. 1. A school textbook, 5th class biology. They are made to teach, so they should be good - at least for children of the appropriate age.
2. A historical approach. Start with Linné, go over Darwin and Mendel to the discovery of chromosomes, genetics, put in punctuated equilibrium and arrive at the modern synthesis.
The second is better suited for adults who have already been fed creationist misinformation. For them, it is more important to unlearn by understanding how the theories came to be what they are.
But for some, even that is assuming too much prior knowledge. They don't have a problem with biology, they have a problem with science, or sometimes even with logic.

 

[YoursTrue]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Biology is a branch of science that deals with living organisms and their vital processes. Biology encompasses diverse fields, including botany, conservation, ecology, evolution, genetics, marine biology, medicine, microbiology, molecular biology, physiology, and zoology." Anyway, thank you all for trying to explain science and maybe biology not associated with biology, etc. So thanks and I'm finished. I do not think or believe that anyone knows what the first living thing was on earth and moreso, how it really (not opinion) appeared. So guys, and gals, take care y'all. Thanks again for trying...

Biology | Definition, History, Concepts, Branches, & Facts

Biology, study of living things and their vital processes that deals with all the physicochemical aspects of life. Modern principles of other fields, such as chemistry, medicine, and physics, for example, are integrated with those of biology in areas such as biochemistry, biomedicine, and...

www.britannica.com

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@YoursTrue, I recommend going for an understanding of the basic concepts of evolutionary theory without diving too deeply into the details. Gene pools are an example of something you could never get to and still understand evolution at a layman's level reasonably well. I would recommend Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene. It's all explained in simple terms and it gave me a great start in understanding the subject. Then, if you still want to, investigate some particular points that you find puzzling.

I think if we are going to recommend a Dawkins book to @YoursTrue , then I figure The Greatest Show on Earth would be a better fit.
That book was in fact written specifically for a creationist audience. It doesn't get technical at all and just lays out the basics and it only really goes into detail to explain the evidence in terms of how and why it is evidence.

Additionally, it also touches on creationist propaganda and explains in delicious detail just how dishonest that gets and how it gets stuff wrong all the time.

It's a very informative book. It outlines the basic concepts of evolution in rather simple terms, it explains the how and why of the evidence and it explains how creationist sources are fundamentally dishonest and / or wrong.



The only downside though, is that creationists usually take out the crucifix and garlic when they hear the name Dawkins.

 

[sayak83]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Biology is a branch of science that deals with living organisms and their vital YAle Evolution course videosprocesses. Biology encompasses diverse fields, including botany, conservation, ecology, evolution, genetics, marine biology, medicine, microbiology, molecular biology, physiology, and zoology." Anyway, thank you all for trying to explain science and maybe biology not associated with biology, etc. So thanks and I'm finished. I do not think or believe that anyone knows what the first living thing was on earth and moreso, how it really (not opinion) appeared. So guys, and gals, take care y'all. Thanks again for trying...

Biology | Definition, History, Concepts, Branches, & Facts

Biology, study of living things and their vital processes that deals with all the physicochemical aspects of life. Modern principles of other fields, such as chemistry, medicine, and physics, for example, are integrated with those of biology in areas such as biochemistry, biomedicine, and...

www.britannica.com

How about trying these out? Yale video lecture series on evolution.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6299F3195349CCDA&si=1c54a1S9KrptTonl