Feral Hogs

[m_the0ry]

Again I'm not arguing that all non coding sequences are meaningless, I'm arguing that all meaningless sequences are non coding.

To be arguing against my point you have to be saying that every single base pair is significant in the formation of the organism. I want to be sure this is in fact what you are saying before I rebut.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Again I'm not arguing that all non coding sequences are meaningless, I'm arguing that all meaningless sequences are non coding.

To be arguing against my point you have to be saying that every single base pair is significant in the formation of the organism. I want to be sure this is in fact what you are saying before I rebut.

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm certainly not saying that so no rebuttal needed. My original beef was with the term "junk DNA" which gives people the idea that noncoding DNA is not relevant and really screws their idea of how this stuff works.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's called epigenetics. A recent development in theory which was laughed at when first suggested. I see them talking about "stress" being a factor triggering epigenetic changes. I wonder how the intelligence of the species might get involved. There seems to me to be a feedback between stress and the experience of it by intelligence.

I know this is theoretical heresy for evolution, but if epigenetics can direct physical changes, why couldn't it direct alterations to the dna itself? Wouldn't it be an evolutionary advantage for a species under intense environmental stress to direct rapid alterations in its dna? Thus giving it a chance to produce a lot of radically "new models" in the next generation - one of which might be able to survive in an environment so stressful it is likely to be forcing the original form of the species into extinction. Wouldn't such a mechanism have evolutionary advantages?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Such a mechanism would have exciting applications in a science fiction novel.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish this idea would go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The fact that we don't know what it does doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't do anything.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'Junk' DNA that doesn't seem to do anything

[/ QUOTE ]

I really wish this idea would go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The fact that we don't know what it does doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that the fact that it doesn't code for a protein doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't do anything. We know what some of it does and it's really, really important.

[Bill Haywood]

I remember seeing the report on foxes. The explanation was that although they selected foxes for temperament, other changes accompanied. Apparently, the genes for easy temperament had other affects on fur, etc.

Feral hogs would change quickly because all the tusk and stiff hair and aggression genes are still present in the gene pool, just in low numbers. Since they confer significant advantages, they rapidly increase in the wild.

Re: junk DNA. They ARE finding functions for "junk" DNA. A lot is just junk, but a lot is involved in regulating other genes. The "junk" DNA is apparently a new class of genes that do not code for proteins. They use RNA to regulate protein production by other genes. This means there is a whole new class of genes for evolution to act through -- another blow to the folks who refuse to believe mutations can produce speciation.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Feral hogs would change quickly because all the tusk and stiff hair and aggression genes are still present in the gene pool, just in low numbers. Since they confer significant advantages, they rapidly increase in the wild.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be the normal explanation. I don't think it applies here though because of the amazing speed with which the changes take place. The very next generation is remarkably transformed. I'm not sure, but there may even be transfomative effects in the original hogs that escape. Nothing has changed for them but the environment. And the first generation could only be affected by the genetic concentration on the first dominant male hog, who was originally of the same soft haired pink tuskless type - probably the hog that would have been used for breeding anyway.

PairTheBoard

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
The very next generation is remarkably transformed. I'm not sure, but there may even be transfomative effects in the original hogs that escape.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, that is intriguing.

Well, plenty of development is done in response to the environment. Human wisdom teeth never emerge because we don't spend our lives wearing our molars down to the nub chewing on hides. Skin darkens only with exposure to the sun. Who knows, maybe tusks develop only by digging for truffles.

Living in pens, eating from a trough, is immensely different from working for a pig living. I would imagine the lack of environmental stimulus accounts for these extra-selective changes, not some unknown genetic mechanisms.

[Jetboy2]

[ QUOTE ]
They say that the soft haired pink, short snouted, relatively well behaved domesticated farm pigs without tusks revert suprisingly quickly to coarse long haired dark, long snouted, viscious feral hogs with tusks when they escape into the wild. This happens in just a generation or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this.... A female pig can become pregnant at around 8-18 months of age. She will then go into heat every 21 days. Male pigs become sexually active at 8-10 months of age. A litter of piglets typically contains between 6 and 12 piglets.

So... the stupid domesticated ones die off rapidly; and the ones with "wild" traits live. Go figure? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.

Cats can become feral pretty quickly as well; but they don't seem to change all that much in appearance.

I need to read up on the fox thing...

jb2

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They say that the soft haired pink, short snouted, relatively well behaved domesticated farm pigs without tusks revert suprisingly quickly to coarse long haired dark, long snouted, viscious feral hogs with tusks when they escape into the wild. This happens in just a generation or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider this.... A female pig can become pregnant at around 8-18 months of age. She will then go into heat every 21 days. Male pigs become sexually active at 8-10 months of age. A litter of piglets typically contains between 6 and 12 piglets.

So... the stupid domesticated ones die off rapidly; and the ones with "wild" traits live. Go figure? Doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are getting at. There's normally not a mix of domesticated and "wild" piglets when they are in a domestic setting.

Also, it doesn't matter how fast their generation time is if they are measuring the change in generations.