[Fwd: Re: what comes next-the chicken or the fox?]

From: Massie (mrlab@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2000 - 10:29:47 EST

  • Next message: Massie: "Re: *Physical Constants"

    attached mail follows:


    David Campbell wrote:
    >
    > >There are a big bunch of chickens and the foxes are eating them. Over
    > >time there will be some microselection as the gene frequencies are
    > >modified and those with longer legs are seen to dominate the population.
    > >
    > >Now tell me as to "inventive macromutations":
    > >
    > >Will the chickens develope teeth as a defensive mechanism?
    > >
    > >Will they develop an eye in the back of their head?
    > >
    > >How long will it take given the number of chickens, foxes, etc.?
    > >
    > >What does the ratio of chickens to foxes have to be at t=0 so that the
    > >chickens do not go extinct? Or, that there become too few chickens so
    > >genetically produce an effective mutation rate?
    > >
    > >What will happen, and incidently, I will give you as accurate a
    > >description of the initial conditions of the chickens as you want, why,
    > >you can even be given the total genetic code of the chicken, mutation
    > >rate, etc. Just tell me what you want to know and in fact please assume
    > >that you have all the information you want at time zero.
    > >
    >
    > It may in part reflect a Calvinistic viewpoint, but assuming that we knew
    > exactly what gene did what, what the effect of each mutation would be, the
    > relative benefits and costs of each change, and what mutations would occur
    > (e.g., exactly what bases would get hit by a cosmic ray or be miscopied,
    > etc.), I think it would be possible to predict the evolution. God, being
    > omniscent and omnipotent, can bring about exactly what He wants through
    > such a process even though it is practically unpredictable to us.
    >
    > Speculation on what could happen:
    > Escape seems to be a more frequent adaptation than sharp teeth for defense,
    > so better wings or longer legs seem more likely. Sharp teeth might also
    > interfere with eating grain and bugs. There was a paper several years ago
    > claiming to have gotten a chicken tooth gene to work; however, it was
    > questioned whether their protocol was adequate to ensure that the
    > tooth-making gene really came from the chicken.
    >
    > Instead of an eye in back, moving eyes from the front towards the side of
    > the head does occur. This gives closer to 360 degree vision but less
    > binocular vision. I believe woodcocks have about a 340 degree view without
    > turning their heads, for example. I would guess that the ability to turn
    > one's head or turn around does a good enough job, and eyes in the back of
    > the head would not be greatly favored.
    >
    > At least one bird has developed poison as a defense. Getting very big is
    > another possibility. A hyperactive thyroid is the major difference between
    > a wolf and a dog, a pigeon and a dodo, or a Canada Goose and the giant
    > extinct flightless goose of Hawaii. It is a bit like Peter Pan, never
    > growing up in certain respects. Obviously, this is not an advantage
    > against human predators, as the last two examples show, unless we figure
    > out that domesticating them will ensure a continual supply. A giant fuzzy
    > flightless chicken might be a challenge for foxes, though, and requires
    > only a little mutation.
    >
    > If you started with colorful chickens, mutation to a more camoflaged
    > pattern might be favored and relatively easy.
    >
    > There is the old tall tale of someone who liked drumsticks and developed a
    > three legged chicken. They ran too fast for him to catch, however. Maybe
    > that's the next big mutation :)
    >
    > A problem in communication here is the definition of a major mutation. A
    > slight change in a gene involved in early development could have a big
    > effect on the final appearance, whereas extensive mutation of another gene
    > might have little or no morphological effect. For example, the living
    > Hawaiian goose, the Nene, does not look all that different from a Canada
    > Goose, yet it split off earlier than the giant flightless goose. The
    > flightless goose had a mutation with bigger effects on appearance than did
    > the Nene, despite having less time.
    >
    > David C.
    ***********

    Your prediction is not precise enough to allow for any kind of testing
    of the actualy outcome vs. the forecast. Bert M.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jan 14 2000 - 10:35:49 EST