Do you think animals have less genetic variety than humans?

[Arete]

I believe you are confusing a process to learn about "rabbits" with rabbits themselves and then illegitimately extrapolating the knowledge gained to apply to all life.

 

In reality there is no such thing as "a rabbit". There aren't ten rabbits in the entire world because each rabbit is different.

 

So, basically you're saying that because intra-specific genetic variation exists, populations and species cannot. That's profoundly wrong. While biological diversification is a continuum and divisions are somewhat arbitrary, these categories exist. I'm repeating myself, but evolution is a population process - it is nonsensical to claim that populations don't exist.

 

 

It is here, in observation, that current hypotheses are seen as being highly questionable.

 

Nope, sorry. Again, this is repetition of earlier posts, but population genetics is supported by a wealth of observation. Theory and observation are not contradictory here.

 

 

But the fact remains that there is no such thing as "a rabbit" and that each rabbit in the world has its own distinct genes.

 

Nope, rabbits, by and large have the same genes. Individuals may different gene variants - called alleles. I belive this a gross misunderstanding of the difference between a gene and an allele, and thus you're misinterpreting what genetic variation is.

 

 

There simply is no such thing as an "average rabbit". There are norms and parameters of construction and behavior but there is no individual that is representative of "a rabbit".

 

There is actually eight species of rabbit. Each has a holotype and a formal description. So this is wrong.

 

 

This means there's also no such thing as "rabbit populations".

 

Sorry, but no. We can define populations using basic Hardy Weinberg principles.

 

These are terms we use to fascilitate communication and to better develop and understand the processes used to understand nature: they simply are not representative of nature (rabbit) itself. It's this disconnect between reality and our study of it that results in observation being contrary to "theory".

 

No, populations conform to genetic principles and are quantifiable entities, as linked to above.

 

 

The reality is that we can see how things like "natural selection" or breeding simply trumps survival of the fittest.

 

Natural selection and survival of the fittest are the same thing.

 

 

my visceral knowldge

 

I'm sorry, but your visceral knowledge is plain wrong, in many respects and I think this thread is becoming a good example of how "visceral knowledge" is inadequate to understand science. If you wish to understand what's going on with bottlenecks and genetics, I'd read up on a little basic population genetics. Some of the concepts are a little counter-intuitive at first, but I'm sure you will find it interesting.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Arete

[cladking]

 

 

Nope, rabbits, by and large have the same genes. Individuals may different gene variants - called alleles. I belive this a gross misunderstanding of the difference between a gene and an allele, and thus you're misinterpreting what genetic variation is.

 

 

At one time I was familiar with most of these terms and even some of the processes that generated the knowledge and terms.

 

Now when I use the word "gene(s)" I'm referring to the entire encoding of the structure and each part of the structure that determines the nature of the indiviual as well as its growth, maintenance, and all physical characteristics. I am aware that many things like the developement of the lungs in the embryo is driven by rather simple genetic encoding. By the same token though there is vast difference between individuals and these are certainly not all related to experience and perspective.

 

I am merely suggesting that the vast physical differences are each related to a difference in known or unknowns "genes" or their expression in conjunction with other genes. I believe it's common sense that most individual differences are inate and that all individual structure is determined by the "genes" whether it's highly similar to other individuals of the species or not. I believe it's common sense that no two rabbit legs are exactly alike.

 

If you disagree then we probably have no basis for argument. I'm already certain that your expertise in the process of learning about biology and its application to understanding exceeds mine. I'm far less certain you're correct or that the extrapolations of current theory are correct.

Edited January 7, 2015 by cladking

[SiameseSam]

Humans have evolved to have and to recognize distinct faces as a means of identification. It's entirely possible that a larger share of our genetic diversity goes into facial structure than for most animals.

 

Humans overall, though, are among the least genetically diverse animals on the planet having gone through a relatively recent (on geological and evolutionary time scales) population bottleneck.

How do you know that's true? It could just be a matter of perspective that animals have less diverse facial structures than humans do. I remember reading a study that said animals can tell each other apart better than telling humans apart.

[Delta1212]

How do you know that's true? It could just be a matter of perspective that animals have less diverse facial structures than humans do. I remember reading a study that said animals can tell each other apart better than telling humans apart.

I'm sure they probably can, but just because humans largely tell each other apart by faces doesn't mean animals all use the same strategy. There are smells, sounds, patterns and so forth that are also available to them, plus features other than those in the face.

 

I'm not saying that no animals uses faces at all, but humans have a number of reasons why we're especially well suited to focus on the face in particular, and animals are not necessarily constrained to having to use the same strategy for identification.