Top end mulga

[waruikazi]

The thing you should remember with genes and controls such as that GP is because the gene is detrimental to the species it will eventually breed out of the gene pool.

 

[GeckPhotographer]

Well technically you are right. But you are also in a way wrong. The gene does not in any way lower reproduction chance. Therefore there are no selecting agents affecting animals with this gene other than those affecting all animals. Animals with this gene will be able to breed just as much as individuals without. Eventually of course there will be so few males and so few females that the number of frogs recruited each year will be far lower than casualties. The population will decrease. There is presumable equal chance of male producing males surviving as regular as the population decreases. So eventually you get to a point where the population has been drastically and radically decreased, but yes it is assumable that probably population survive without the gene, this would however be by pure chance that the males within those populations that survived were non male producers. If any male producers remain they would continue to affect a population right down to driving a population into extinction by producing only male producers.

The gene cannot "disappear" and evolution does not know it is having an adverse effect on the population. It simply comes down to which frogs are reproducing the most and as the percentage make-up of the population that are male producers should increase similarly to exponentially there should be no reason for the gene to be bred out until extinction occurs.

At least the way I see it.

 

[waruikazi]

The gene certaintly could disappear out of the population and it can also mutate while still in the population. That is how evolution works, when there is a trait that is detrimental to a species they either change (lose that trait), go extinct or do something inbetween those two scenarios.

I think you are overlooking that the toads have another genetic option on the cards. They are the toads that can produce both males and females.

Well technically you are right. But you are also in a way wrong. The gene does not in any way lower reproduction chance. Therefore there are no selecting agents affecting animals with this gene other than those affecting all animals. Animals with this gene will be able to breed just as much as individuals without. Eventually of course there will be so few males and so few females that the number of frogs recruited each year will be far lower than casualties. The population will decrease. There is presumable equal chance of male producing males surviving as regular as the population decreases. So eventually you get to a point where the population has been drastically and radically decreased, but yes it is assumable that probably population survive without the gene, this would however be by pure chance that the males within those populations that survived were non male producers. If any male producers remain they would continue to affect a population right down to driving a population into extinction by producing only male producers.

The gene cannot "disappear" and evolution does not know it is having an adverse effect on the population. It simply comes down to which frogs are reproducing the most and as the percentage make-up of the population that are male producers should increase similarly to exponentially there should be no reason for the gene to be bred out until extinction occurs.

At least the way I see it.

 

[Poggle]

Hey Gordo,

I was lucky enough to find a female mulga about 40kms north of Mataranka in December. She measures about 1.7 in length and very health. What is the status of these snakes that far south?

 

[waruikazi]

I don't know but i've heard that south of Mataranka that there are still a few around. I would assume that it has something to do with the toads and the available water.

 

[saratoga]

Hey Gordo,
She measures about 1.7 in length and very health. What is the status of these snakes that far south?

She measures or she measured?

One implies you still have her!

 

[r3ptilian]

She measures or she measured?

One implies you still have her!

Benefit of the doubt, s is located next to d on a keyboard haha.

 

[saratoga]

Benefit of the doubt, s is located next to d on a keyboard haha.

lol... good reply!

 

[GeckPhotographer]

The gene certaintly could disappear out of the population and it can also mutate while still in the population. That is how evolution works, when there is a trait that is detrimental to a species they either change (lose that trait), go extinct or do something inbetween those two scenarios.

I think you are overlooking that the toads have another genetic option on the cards. They are the toads that can produce both males and females.

It can mutate while still in the population yes. However the chance of it mutating in every individual containing it is astronomical. What you are saying is that evolution works on the effect of a gene to a population, this is not correct, evolution works more on a genes impact on the individual in which it is found. This trait is in no way detrimental to the individual, therefore there is no selecting agent against it, no reason for them to change. The toads themselves cannot choose to change.

As for the other genetic option the viable males and females. I am not overlooking it at all just taking statistics into account. When a viable male breeds he produces roughly 1:1 Male:Female, when a altered breeds he produces all male, in this way in a population with roughly equal number of altered and viable (I start from roughly equal to make my point clear it works fine with less than equal) toads, the number of male toads produced will be higher than the number of female toads, and the number of male producing toads will be the higher percentage of those male toads (maybe not by much but by a non-coincidental amount). In this way the next time breeding occurs there are more male producing toads than viable. |

What this is is a positive feedback system, the amount of male producing toads produced is proportional and increasing based on the number already within the population. Furthermore as it increases the number of females rapidly decrease proportionally thus making it even harder for the minority males (viable) to find one to mate with.

I can understand what you are saying but evolution does not select based on what is good for a species, it selects by who reproduces and in this case the gene that ends up bad for the species ends up being more prolific than the one that is good. Apart from mutation or extinction there is no reason it should leave the species and as I say mutation in all individuals has an astronomically small chance, and as for them going extinct in Australia well that's what we want.

One more point I predict you may in the future put up as argument. You may say that if mutation occurs that individual may become more prolific than toads carrying the male producing gene. If the mutation simply made those animals able to reproduce viably it would obey the mathematics already demonstrated (in words but I could write up some very basic perfect world equations). Therefore the mutation would not only need to eliminate the gene but replace it with a more prolific gene, or one that cancelled out the effect of the first gene. The chance of this mutation occurring is small, I fail to see how a straight more prolific gene could mathematically happen, and one counteracting the first would simply return the situation to where it started, but assuming it happened in only few individuals would take far longer to build up when a large number of male producers are in the population so toad numbers would still likely be produced.

I welcome criticism of my argument, I hope this is more succinct and I certainly know it contains fewer errors than the first I put down.

 

[waruikazi]

If it was going to work it would have been done.

Perhaps bred out of the population is the wrong phrase to use. A control like that is unlikely to knock the species out, it is very likely the species will find a way around it.

Evolution does work on what is good for a species, not just what is good for an individual.

 

[junglepython2]

This trait is in no way detrimental to the individual, therefore there is no selecting agent against it, no reason for them to change. The toads themselves cannot choose to change.

It is detrimental to that individuals collective offspring though as all will be male. The offspring will have reduced mating rates compared to a toad that produces an equal mix of male and females.

 

[GeckPhotographer]

If it was going to work it would have been done.

I sort of agree. I honestly don't know why it was not implemented but for starters it would take huge amounts of time and money and a government press release saying they are releasing a couple thousand + toads probably wouldn't go down well.

Perhaps bred out of the population is the wrong phrase to use. A control like that is unlikely to knock the species out, it is very likely the species will find a way around it.

Evolution does work on what is good for a species, not just what is good for an individual.

It is unlikely to totally knock the species out yes, I have my doubts it would effectively spread across the range toads now occupy. It is possible a way would occur which allowed to species around it but I see no reason why it has to or is particularly likely. If you would like to explain why it is so likely please do so.

Firstly I repeat evolution does not work at all with anything on what is 'good'. Evolution works in that organisms that reproduce pass on their genes. This happens at an individual level, species do not breed, individuals within a species breed. Therefore any selection must happen at an individual level to affect a species. Please see my reply below for a continuation of this. The only thing I believe I mentioned about this technology is that proof of concept exists that male toads can be altered genetically to produce male offspring only, the rest is a paper concept.

It is detrimental to that individuals collective offspring though as all will be male. The offspring will have reduced mating rates compared to a toad that produces an equal mix of male and females.

True in the end it ends up detrimental. But there is no reason a toad with this gene will have reduced mating chance. Toads select breeding partners mostly on which toad is calling loudest and strongest or whichever toad jumps onto the females back first. As the fitness of these animals is no way impaired they will have in no way any reduced chance of breeding. No animal but humans select to breed based on genotypic characteristics that the animal cannot detect as a phenotype. Now the female toads may be able to detect the toad is a male but there is no way they should be able to detect it is male producing.




I like your replies and I enjoy debate but if you could stop speaking of evolution as if it is intelligent and is trying to help a species survive I feel it would improve your arguments.
I am not arguing this is a silver bullet or a cure all, I am backing up my position that if daughter-less male technology could be released into a population and work like it does on paper (there are no population based tests to back it up) there is absolutely no reason that it should be likely to be bred out of the population before making a highly significant impact.

 

[waruikazi]

No one said evolution is intelligent. What is good, or not detrimental for an individual of a species can be bad for the species as a whole. One example i can think of is longer necked male giraffes. The males with longer necks are more likely to win combat and reproduce but their offspring are disadvantaged by becoming uncoordinated when they bend down to feed/drink.

There is every reason why a toad with this gene (if it is a gene that does it) will have a reduced mating chance. There will be fewer suitable partners.

Evolution works on species. That's how you get different species, you can't have a new species evolve and survive as a species with a single individual.

 

[GeckPhotographer]

No one said evolution is intelligent.

Some points implied it.

What is good, or not detrimental for an individual of a species can be bad for the species as a whole. One example i can think of is longer necked male giraffes. The males with longer necks are more likely to win combat and reproduce but their offspring are disadvantaged by becoming uncoordinated when they bend down to feed/drink.

This is an example where there is a selecting agent both for and against the gene (or really many genes). It is still selecting at an individual level just through different factors. All I am saying is that individual happens because selecting agents select against individuals the cumulative affect of these selections leads to the change in species. So it does all come down to the individuals.

There is every reason why a toad with this gene (if it is a gene that does it) will have a reduced mating chance. There will be fewer suitable partners.

How would there be fewer suitable partners? I mean sure the gene will cause less partners to be created but that is as true for every toad in the population. The altered toad can suitably breed with any female any normal toad can breed with. There is no reason at all toads with this gene would have reduced mating chance. In fact as they gradually inflate their population relative to normal males, they as a whole have a greater mating chance because they have more individuals.

Evolution works on species. That's how you get different species, you can't have a new species evolve and survive as a species with a single individual.

No you cannot but evolution of new species acts by selection of individuals.


Look I agree there could be any number of problems with the gene, the gene itself could cause disease in the animal. There is not enough research to know at all. So unless research is done to know what the effect of the gene is on the animal it remains still only proof of concept toads can be produced to do this. And based off that that is all the knowledge existing then if that alteration is the only one to occur to the toad (and there is no evidence to say either way) then the toad will act exactly like a normal toad. It will have exactly the same chance on every level as a normal toad. But mathematically it will change the population after generations to improve its own chances and decrease those of a normal toad.

 

[waruikazi]

Some points implied it.

This is an example where there is a selecting agent both for and against the gene (or really many genes). It is still selecting at an individual level just through different factors. All I am saying is that individual happens because selecting agents select against individuals the cumulative affect of these selections leads to the change in species. So it does all come down to the individuals. Unlike the toad which has no benefit for an individual and a detriment to the species as a whole.

How would there be fewer suitable partners? I mean sure the gene will cause less partners to be created but that is as true for every toad in the population. The altered toad can suitably breed with any female any normal toad can breed with. There is no reason at all toads with this gene would have reduced mating chance. In fact as they gradually inflate their population relative to normal males, they as a whole have a greater mating chance because they have more individuals. Less females for each male to breed with. Lower chance of for each male to breed, bad for the species.

No you cannot but evolution of new species acts by selection of individuals.
An individual that is part of a population of a species that passes the change onto the rest of the population.

Look I agree there could be any number of problems with the gene, the gene itself could cause disease in the animal. There is not enough research to know at all. So unless research is done to know what the effect of the gene is on the animal it remains still only proof of concept toads can be produced to do this. And based off that that is all the knowledge existing then if that alteration is the only one to occur to the toad (and there is no evidence to say either way) then the toad will act exactly like a normal toad. It will have exactly the same chance on every level as a normal toad. But mathematically it will change the population after generations to improve its own chances and decrease those of a normal toad.

Evolution works on species as a whole as well as individuals of a species. That's one way a whole species changes into another.

 

[Poggle]

She measures or she measured?

One implies you still have her!

One can imply what ever they like But she "measured" was the term i was after.. Seeing as thought i was on a holiday even if i wanted to bring hom a beautiful snake like that.... 2 words at getting in the car with my wife..... GOOD LUCK haha

Evolution works on species as a whole as well as individuals of a species. That's one way a whole species changes into another.

Completely agree