Let's start at the beginning? maybe?

[LuisDantas]

I wasn't aware of the rapidity potential. I was always under the impression, that it takes upwards of a million years or better to produce a new specie type. Cool info.

It is probably better to take the measure in generations instead of years.

 

[YoursTrue]

The concept of gene pool requires potential for interbreeding, so no, of course fish and gorillas can't belong to the same gene pool.

They do have common ancestors that once did, however. Some population of fish or fish-like organisms, or their earlier ancestors if you want to go back further.

Hello again. I'm going over some of the responses, and I thank you for narrowing the subject down to gene pool right now because I can only follow one point at a time and not gloss over things I have questions about as if I understand or accept them as true. So thanks again.
Now as for gene pool. I'd like to discuss that for a moment. I will concede (possibly agree) that humans have a gene pool. So the question is: how far back does this gene pool go, in other words, to what previous species do gene pools go that can be analyzed, if you understand the question. Horses are still alive, so I figure gene pools are available for them. But what about species that are no longer around? I"m figuring gene pools are no longer around for them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I am not following. What do you mean by analysis here?

Oh. Well, how would someone know what the gene pool consists of?

 

[YoursTrue]

ok, thanks for answering, gotta go for a while now.

 

[Pogo]

I wasn't aware of the rapidity potential. I was always under the impression, that it takes upwards of a million years or better to produce a new specie type. Cool info.

It can be way faster than that, there is a new species in the Rhine that is a hybrid of two sculpins that came into contact due to a canal being dug in 1807. A small population was discovered in 1990 and they are now very common in parts of the river indicating the hybridization is probably even more recent than the canal digging. One of the parents can't really live in the river but the offspring might even be classed as invasive.
This is effectively the mating of two fish mating once and creating a new species by any reasonable definition of speciation. Evolution is fuzzy, but the theory explains the observed facts very well.

 

[Pogo]

Hello again. I'm going over some of the responses, and I thank you for narrowing the subject down to gene pool right now because I can only follow one point at a time and not gloss over things I have questions about as if I understand or accept them as true. So thanks again.
Now as for gene pool. I'd like to discuss that for a moment. I will concede (possibly agree) that humans have a gene pool. So the question is: how far back does this gene pool go, in other words, to what previous species do gene pools go that can be analyzed, if you understand the question. Horses are still alive, so I figure gene pools are available for them. But what about species that are no longer around? I"m figuring gene pools are no longer around for them.

gene pools are the sum of genes from simultaneously living creatures. Our ancestors are not actually in our gene pool though we may have inherited genes from them.
Our ancestor sarcoptygerians (the one everyone calls a fish) had their own gene pool and that gene pool gave rise to the children and cousins etc that eventually that became us and fish like tuna and everything else with a backbone.
Our gene pools don't actually go back in history, but our genes do or rather they come forward from the past.

 

[Pogo]

Mea Culpa , Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

Not Sarcoptygerii, but their ancestor Osteichthyes, (which translates to bony fish) and includes the ray finned fish.
I haven't actually taken a Biology course since 8th grade.

 

[LuisDantas]

Oh. Well, how would someone know what the gene pool consists of?

A gene pool is a population of beings that can conceivably breed resulting in fertile offspring.

What is unclear there?

 

[LuisDantas]

Now as for gene pool. I'd like to discuss that for a moment. I will concede (possibly agree) that humans have a gene pool.

Out of curiosity: is there anything that you find unconvincing or speculative in the idea of a gene pool of humans?

I would think that it is uncontroversial enough that humans exist in populations and that it is possible, even usual, to have offspring inside those populations.

That is really all there is to it. Am I missing or misunderstanding anything here?

So the question is: how far back does this gene pool go, in other words, to what previous species do gene pools go that can be analyzed, if you understand the question.

Taking your question very literally - probably more than you mean to - I would say about three generations, four at most.

Why?

Because a gene pool isn't a legacy lasting through time; it is a snapshot of the potential for genetic diversity at a given moment in time.

We have many generations of ancestors that each were part of their own gene pools. Some of the most recent were also human, most of the more ancient were not.

Horses are still alive, so I figure gene pools are available for them.

Sure. All living beings that reproduce sexually have gene pools of their own. Those are essentially two different ways of saying the same thing.

But what about species that are no longer around? I"m figuring gene pools are no longer around for them.

Well, yes, that is correct. Since a gene pool is a population capable of having offspring, extinct species do not have them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Out of curiosity: is there anything that you find unconvincing or speculative in the idea of a gene pool of humans?

Not really. Except that I guess the gene pool for humans is strictly for humans. I know this may sound silly, but I think it means the genes that can produce or be used strictly for humans and no other species, type thing. Taking one thing at a time due to constraints of posts. But that does make me wonder about those considered human(?) or hominids but not evidently homo sapiens, such as Neandertals. Or Denisovans. What do you think?nThe gene pool you are talking about for humans, does that cover Neandertals?

 

[YoursTrue]

Out of curiosity: is there anything that you find unconvincing or speculative in the idea of a gene pool of humans?

I would think that it is uncontroversial enough that humans exist in populations and that it is possible, even usual, to have offspring inside those populations.

That is really all there is to it. Am I missing or misunderstanding anything here?




Taking your question very literally - probably more than you mean to - I would say about three generations, four at most.

Why?

Because a gene pool isn't a legacy lasting through time; it is a snapshot of the potential for genetic diversity at a given moment in time.

We have many generations of ancestors that each were part of their own gene pools. Some of the most recent were also human, most of the more ancient were not.




Sure. All living beings that reproduce sexually have gene pools of their own. Those are essentially two different ways of saying the same thing.




Well, yes, that is correct. Since a gene pool is a population capable of having offspring, extinct species do not have them.

Sorry, I guess I got ahead of your posts. Neandertals are extinct, aren't they? I can't say anything without verification because I can be wrong in my recollection or understanding. So what I think you are saying is that gene pool is within each organism, and is passed on by sexual reproduction, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Out of curiosity: is there anything that you find unconvincing or speculative in the idea of a gene pool of humans?

I would think that it is uncontroversial enough that humans exist in populations and that it is possible, even usual, to have offspring inside those populations.

That is really all there is to it. Am I missing or misunderstanding anything here?




Taking your question very literally - probably more than you mean to - I would say about three generations, four at most.

Why?

Because a gene pool isn't a legacy lasting through time; it is a snapshot of the potential for genetic diversity at a given moment in time.

We have many generations of ancestors that each were part of their own gene pools. Some of the most recent were also human, most of the more ancient were not.




Sure. All living beings that reproduce sexually have gene pools of their own. Those are essentially two different ways of saying the same thing.




Well, yes, that is correct. Since a gene pool is a population capable of having offspring, extinct species do not have them.

I know this may sound like a silly question, but thank you for putting up with me, here is the question -- gene pool is that which is within each individual. (Right?)

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really. Except that I guess the gene pool for humans is strictly for humans. I know this may sound silly, but I think it means the genes that can produce or be used strictly for humans and no other species, type thing.

Sort of. Most of the time that is accurate. But speciation does occur, which means that sometimes enough genetic variation will accumulate to start to hint of a new species. That will of course affect the ability of the individuals to interbreed with each other.

It is both a rare occurrence and an almost unavoidable one. It will occurr with us humans too, provided that we survive for enough new generations and do not artificially avoid it with some form of genetic screening.

Taking one thing at a time due to constraints of posts. But that does make me wonder about those considered human(?) or hominids but not evidently homo sapiens, such as Neandertals. Or Denisovans. What do you think?

The gene pool you are talking about for humans, does that cover Neandertals?

It once did, on its fringes, yes. About 55 thousand years ago. Most living humans have some amount of Neanderthal ancestry.

Of course, that means that the genetic material that we inherited from our Neanderthal ancestors is fully integrated into our own genes and gene pools; it originated in Neanderthals, but it is now as much a part of Homo Sapiens as any other.

To put it in other words, they are not Neanderthal genes in Homo Sapiens; they are Homo Sapiens genes that were acquired from Neanderthal ancestry. They became part of Homo Sapiens' genetic composition by being reliably transmitted from each generation of Homo Sapiens to the next.

I don't know what is known of Denisovan participation in our genetic material. A very quick search suggests that none are known.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry, I guess I got ahead of your posts. Neandertals are extinct, aren't they? I can't say anything without verification because I can be wrong in my recollection or understanding. So what I think you are saying is that gene pool is within each organism, and is passed on by sexual reproduction, is that right?

Each human individual has its own genetic composition, but as individuals we do not have gene pools of our own; gene pools are by definition populations, groups, collectives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Critics of creationism often harp on how creationists can't define "kind". That's throwing stones in a glasshouse, as biologists have equal problems defining "species". You won't get more clarification, as that is inherently an ambiguous concept. Not only do different fields of biology use different definitions, but there simply is no clear edge. Breeding success is stochastic, not binary. E.g.: horses and donkeys are considered different species because they usually don't have fertile offspring. But one in 10,000 (iirc, don't quote me on that number) mules are fertile.
So when did speciation occur between horses and donkeys? When the success was less than 50%, 10%, 5%?
This also leads to a seeming paradox in ring species. When you have populations A, B, C, D, E of the same species where A and B can interbreed without problems, B and C can, C and D and D and E - but A and E can't.
And there is also a time problem that is theoretical, as we can't test for it. A stable population inhabits a region for a long time without splitting off in different species but, through genetic drift, changes in appearance. When do you call them a different species? They possibly wouldn't be able to interbreed with a member of the old population, but there is no way to test when that threshold had passed. And that threshold would be a moving target.

I hope I didn't confuse you, as our goal here is understanding. But it is important to know about the ambiguous nature of the species concept at its edges. It works fine as long as you don't look too closely.

This isn't really a fair comparison, though.

Evolutionary theory is founded on the idea that the line between species - however we draw it - is crossed all the time. Evolution implies that life is a continuum and however we break it up is going to be arbitrary to some extent.

OTOH, in "baraminology," there should be nothing arbitrary about a "kind": evolution should be possible within a kind and impossible between kinds... IOW, there are limits to how far evolution can proceed.

The problem is, though, that the evidence has shown no limits at all. There's nothing in the tree of life where we can say "that branch couldn't have arisen naturally!"

So defining "species" is about taxonomic conventions, not fundamental science, but defining "kind" is about fundamental flaws in the theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

I know this may sound like a silly question, but thank you for putting up with me, here is the question -- gene pool is that which is within each individual. (Right?)

Sorry, no.

Gene pools are... I suppose that in a sense they are a bit like retail stock availability.

They are the diversity of genetic material in various combinations and states of health and stability that happens to exist at a given time (and location) in the form of living beings with the potential for interbreeding.

AFAIK the concept is only really used for populations capable of sexual reproduction; the genetic diversity of non-sexual beings suffers significantly different challenges. One main reason why sexual reproduction is so widespread is due to its advantages in achieving that diversity and maintaining it across time.

 

[YoursTrue]

A gene pool is a population of beings that can conceivably breed resulting in fertile offspring.

What is unclear there?

So it's like the genes within an organism. And then see if they're compatible with another organism. ? I mean like humans beget humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, no.

Gene pools are... I suppose that in a sense they are a bit like retail stock availability.

They are the diversity of genetic material in various combinations and states of health and stability that happens to exist at a given time (and location) in the form of living beings with the potential for interbreeding.

AFAIK the concept is only really used for populations capable of sexual reproduction; the genetic diversity of non-sexual beings suffers significantly different challenges. One main reason why sexual reproduction is so widespread is due to its advantages in achieving that diversity and maintaining it across time.

So I don't understand it yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, no.

Gene pools are... I suppose that in a sense they are a bit like retail stock availability.

They are the diversity of genetic material in various combinations and states of health and stability that happens to exist at a given time (and location) in the form of living beings with the potential for interbreeding.

AFAIK the concept is only really used for populations capable of sexual reproduction; the genetic diversity of non-sexual beings suffers significantly different challenges. One main reason why sexual reproduction is so widespread is due to its advantages in achieving that diversity and maintaining it across time.

Here is a definition of gene pool: "What is a gene pool simple definition?
Definition. 00:00. A gene pool refers to the combination of all the genes (including alleles) present in a reproducing population or species. A large gene pool has extensive genomic diversity and is better able to withstand environmental challenges."
So then the "gene pool" extends to organisms of a reproducing population or species. Gene Pool.
It further goes on to say "Inbreeding contributes to a smaller gene pool, making populations or species less able to adapt and survive when faced with environmental challenges." Not that I understand that, so I'm about ready to give up. And that may be why I am glad, in a sense, I am no longer in a class I pay for (higher education) that I have NO REAL IDEA what they're talking about as the instructor continues on. So you may want to excuse me and I'm excusing myself, I think, at this point, to understand what is meant by a gene pool.
So far I understand it as the genetics within a group that would enable individuals to reproduce.

 

[LuisDantas]

So it's like the genes within an organism. And then see if they're compatible with another organism. ? I mean like humans beget humans.

Sorry, no.

The relationship between individual organisms and gene pools is that of a specimen towards its collective of other biologically compatible specimens - and potential rivals for same, of course.

Individuals have genetic compositions of their own, and they contribute to collective gene pools along with many other individuals. Individuals may (and do) take part of gene pools, and they are in a sense "built" out of elements of gene pools, but they do not have whole gene pools in themselves, because they are individuals. Gene pools are groups.


Allow me to illustrate with this picture (Source: Mechanisms of Evolution | OpenStax: Concepts of Biology | Study Guides )

Each marble represents a specimen, an individual. Each shade or hue of color represents a whole specific genetic composition.

While this picture does not convey that very well, each individual / marble except perhaps for identical twins will have some measure of variation of color / genetic composition from every other marble / individual.

In this illustration, the interior of the bottle represents a certain gene pool before some sort of bottleneck event greatly diminished the population available for potential mating. Perhaps grave famine, or some deadly epidemic, or very intense predation by other lifeforms.

After that event, the surviving population is much diminished, and so is the gene pool. It is not just that there are less specimens, but also that the potential genetic diversity among that population is much lesser than in the previous gene pool; there are less colors and less hues present (the brighter red marbles did not make it to the glass).

Those red marbles represent a certain amount of genetic diversity that was lost due to the bottleneck event.