I was reading Oileain ...

[DaveWalsh]

Rabbits go black on uninhabited islands where they are left undisturbed. It takes a long time, but it is quite consistent – Dalkey, Duvillaun, probably others.
My guess is Darwinian. Something about a particular place makes it an advantage to be bigger, smaller, darker, longer tailed etc. Left undisturbed long enough, the bigger, smaller, darker, longer tailed etc offspring fair better. The animals generation by generation tend to get bigger, smaller, darker, longer tailed etc.
DWalsh
P.S. Can’t you just feel Sennen and Gerry gearing up for this one?

[smurphy]

I had assumed that the reason why rabbits start appearing black is because the black colour is a recessive gene. So in order for the offspring to be black, both mother and father would have to have the recessive gene. This could be quite rare on the mainland but because there\'s only a set number of individuals on an island, and because inter-breeding occurs, eventually, through a number of generations, the prevalence of the recessive black gene increases, so the probability of mother and father having the black gene increases, and thereby more little black baby rabbits are born.

That\'s what I had assumed.....

[DaveWalsh]

Wow. I am impressed.
Did Darwin know that evolution has a reverse gear?
DWalsh

[knotman]

I suspect that some people may be nervous about camping on Rathlin, especially with all those big mice around. One assumes that perhaps there might be a rush on mouse trap sales this week.

Q (not phizz quizz 6) : When all the Rathlin mice have been caught and \'put away\' for the weekend. what might one do to amuse oneself and others with all those traps in the campsite?

A: www. demo.physics.uiuc.edu/lectdemo/scripts/demo_descript.idc?DemoID=460 (copy and paste to address bar if link won\'t activate)

Sorry to miss this trip. Hope you all have a good one. Sennen

[smurphy]

Interesting article which argues that speciation can actually be caused by first-degree inbreeding (siblings for example);

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/ ... eding.html


Taken from the article:

Speciation is the result of genetic isolation, and that in many cases (but not all) it is associated with chromosomal fission, fusion, inversion, and translocation events. For example, one of the main differences between humans and other great apes is that humans have one less pair of chromosomes; 46 instead of 48. Recent genomic research has shown that this difference is the result of the fusion of two of the chromosomes of great apes to form the human chromosome #2. This led to the following question:

\"Wouldn\'t this fusion event have to occur within at least two members- one male, one female- of the same population in order for it to have any chance of getting passed on?\"

To which I answered:

No. All that would need to happen to make this possible would be for two first-degree relatives carrying the translocation to mate and have offspring. First degree relatives (i.e. parents and offspring or full siblings) can easily have the same chromosomal mutation (i.e. a fusion/fission/translocation/inversion), as they would inherit it from a single parent. If they were to mate with each other (a not uncommon event among non-humans...and even among some humans), they would be able to produce fertile offspring carrying the same chromosomal mutation.

[DaveWalsh]

Sarah,
Does that mean humans are blacker, stupider, and have longer tails than other apes ?
DWalsh

[smurphy]

I think we could all come up with an example or two where that could well be true. :whistle:

- Sarah.