Aramaic Peshitta
Buy Lamsa Bible:
Aramaic Peshitta Bible Repository
14. Typological Differentiation
14. TYPOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION
The origins of the difference between Reynard the Fox and Wile E. Coyote 14. TYPOLOGICAL DIFFERENTIATION 1. Going back in time 2. Continual breeding 3. ‘Breeding back’ 4. Reproductive isolation 5. An explosion in variation14.2 Conclusions 14.3 A comparison with embryonic development 14.4 Summary of TD FAQThe idea of the ur-types has already been introduced. Now, a number of phenomena as we know and observe them today will be described and worked out into a general genetic model which explains them quite well. 1.Going back in time There are now many dogs, in all shapes and sizes. If you go back in time, you find fewer dogs, fewer sizes, and less variation. Via a ur-dog, you finally arrive at the ur-wolf. This ur-wolf has the potential in itself to bring forth all the varieties we see now. The varieties which come forth from the ur-wolf no longer have that potential. Horses, ponies, donkeys, zebras, same story: they go back to a sort of ur-horse. Cows, bisons and aurochs, same thing. Go back in time and you see the ur-ox. Lions, tigers, panthers: a ur-cat, We know that all these animals are of the same type and often can (still) cross with each other, even if the hybrids which result are often infertile.Go back in time and you will find less variation and a ur-type which was the basis for all the variation which came forth from it.
Figure 1, ur-types which bring forth variation
explanation: In the ur-wolf, all the variation was already there, shut up, in the form of neutral genes. The ur-wolf has the potential for enormous variation, what I will thus call the variation potential. All that is necessary for that potential variation to be expressed is the ‘turning off’, the elimination or, to a greater or lesser degree, damage of one or more neutral genes.[1] The amount of variation which can arise from a ur-type is therefore dependent on the number of neutral genes. The variation potential can thus be expressed in a number: the total number of functional neutral genes in a type. The greater that number, the greater the variation potential.If you go back in time, you see less variation, less degeneration, and thus ‘better’, more ‘potent’ ur-types, and not common ancestors which climb from simple to complex, or from fewer genes to more genes.Prediction:The fossil ancestors of the present species are richer in genes than all their present descendants together.[2]2.Continual breedingEvery breeder knows that continual breeding with a certain race is a dead end. It ends somewhere, it does not go further.There were also other reasons why the nineteenth-century naturalists rejected Darwin’s idea of gradual development by natural selection. To begin with, they were not impressed with Darwin’s example of breeding new races via goal-oriented selection by humans, because they knew that that could go on for a while, but that the possibilities would be exhausted. It is a dead end. To put it in modern language: ‘Such a selection removes genetic information from the populations, it is always ‘downhill’ and never ‘uphill’, as is required for the macro-evolution from amoeba to human’ (Bruinsma).A. van den Beukel, Met andere ogen [Through different eyes], pp. 114
Figure 2, decrease in variability in continual breeding.
The species which descend from the ur-wolf can also bring forth variation, but not as much as the ur-wolf. Many dog races can come out of one dog, but no coyotes or foxes any more. In other words, as the variation increases, the potential for variation decreases. Or, better but more difficult: as the divergence increases, that is growing towards another variant, the variation potential or variability decreases. See Figure 2.Explanation:As more neutral genes turn ‘off’ and are lost in a population, fewer neutral genes are left to bring about variation. 100 neutral genes can bring about more variation than 50. Once the neutral genes are ‘out’, the only way they can be put ‘on’ again is by crossing with individuals in which those genes are ‘on’. Only in very rare cases will they become functional again by mutation.[3]This shows that selection, whether natural or artificial, involves impoverishment of the genetic material! First there is no variation. Next, variation arises because some genes turn off. Selection then takes place, because that happens to be beneficial, and that means that a number of genes have been lost. (Natural) Selection means gene loss, not gene growth! (Natural) Selection is not the driving force behind macro-evolution, but the driving force of divergence, the appearance of variation due to gene loss. Actually, that was already present in the word selection. This set of genes is chosen instead of that, process of elimination, selection, you and not you. And with that, genes disappear from the population.3. ‘Breeding back’A third phenomenon is that if you cross different variants with each other, you get a sort of common denominator. From different bred races of pigeons, the rock pigeon will return, Darwin proposed: Moreover, when birds belonging to two or more distinctbreeds are crossed, none of which are blue or have any of the marks of the rock-pigeon , the mongrel offspring are very apt suddenly to acquire these characters. To give one instance out of several which I have observed:- I crossed some white fantails, which breed very true, with some black barbs- and it so happens that blue varieties of barbs are so rare that I never heard of an instance in England; and the mongrels were black, brown, and mottled. I also crossed a barb with a spot, which is a white bird with a red tail and red spot on the forehead, and which notoriously breeds very true; the mongrels were dusky and mottled. I then crossed one of the mongrel barb-fantails with a mongrel barb-spot, and they produced a bird of a beautiful blue colour, with the white loins, double black wing-bar, and barredand white-edged tail-feathers, as any wild-rock pigeon! We can understand these facts, on the well-known principle of reversion to ancestral characters, if all the domestic breeds are descended from the rock-pigeon. [4]Charles Darwin, The Origin of SpeciesIn this way, they have now bred certain ur-oxen back, even though they were extinct, and they now are call Heck bulls:The auroch is the only confirmed race of the European domesticated cow. The auroch was a countryside-dweller. In the Stone Age, this animal was not yet rare in the Netherlands. In Germany, bulls which resemble the ur-cow were bred back from domesticated cows which were descended from the ur-cow, and can there be seen in zoos.Winkler Prins Encyclopedia
Figure 3, Breeding back to the original type
Explanation: By cross-breeding, more neutral genes are ‘on’ in the offspring than in the different varieties. One variety has these neutral genes ‘off’, the other variety has other ones. By cross-breeding, only those genes remain ‘off which both varieties had as ‘off’. In this way, after sufficient cross-breeding, they go back to the mother type, from which the varieties involved were descended.It then follows that it is impossible to return to the main type from a pure-bred daughter variant (see Figure 4). It lacks a number of genes and will never get them back, except by cross-breeding with sister variants which do have those genes. After such a cross-breeding, selection can happen again in order to result in new variation.
Figure 4, Breeding back from one sub-species is not possible
The following experiment was carried out on fruit flies, to test if they can react genetically to gravity, the so-called geotaxis experiment. A funnel-shaped network of 105 decision chambers was fabricated, connected to each other with one-way doors. Each room had two exits, one going up and one going down (see Figure 5). To reach the food at the end of the network, the flies had to choose 14 times if they wanted to fly up or down. The flies which ended up in the top three rooms and the ones which ended up in the bottom three rooms were selected and, using these ‘High’ and ‘Low’ flyers separately, they were bred and selected further. After twelve generations, there were pretty much only fruit flies which flew upwards in the High group and pretty much only those which flew downwards in the Low group.
Figure 5, Biology, pp. 1036; the geotaxis experiment
But after the selection pressure disappeared, the high- and low-flyers stabilised in both populations, so that there were again high-, middle-, and low-flyers. However, in an experiment where the selection pressure remained for 600 generations, and then disappeared, both populations remained completely stable, one as pure high-flyers and the other as pure low-flyers.Geneticists have established that three loci are responsible for that.Explanation:In the 600-generation populations, a certain combination of genes has been determined, some homozygotic on, some homozygotic off. In the twelve-generation populations, the combinations were not yet definitive, that is to say, there were still heterozygotic individuals. That is why, after some time had passed, the original average distribution could return.Prediction:After cross-breeding the two populations of definitive high-flyers and definitive low-flyers, the original average returns. No true low-flyers can be bred by selection from the definitive high-flyers, nor can true high-flyers be bred by selection from the definitive low-flyers. Their genetic material is so impoverished that an about-face is no longer possible as long as they live. [5]The results of these predictions seems to be obvious, but it is still important, because according to the evolution theory, variation comes into existence by mutation, and according to the idea of typological differentiation, by existing neutral genes turning off. Once genes have turned off, they can, under normal circumstances, no longer be turned on again by mutation. There is no way back. And that is clearly shown by this experiment with an obvious result. Prediction:The quagga is a kind of zebra which lived on the African savannahs; the last specimen died as the result of an intensive hunt in 1883. Scientists are now trying to breed them back from normal zebras by selecting specimens with a brown, scarcely striped hide for many generations.· If the quagga is a daughter variant of the zebra, this should be possible. · If the zebra and the quagga are both daughter variants of the same mother type, this will definitely fail. If you then want to get the quagga back, the zebra must first be cross-bred with a close relative in a nearby region, country or continent (a donkey-like relative, for example), and then selection can take place for the brown striped hide. In this way, the genes which have been lost in the zebra are inserted again, which were in the related variant (and in which other genes had been lost). In the long run, this method should then certainly result in the quagga again. · If the quagga itself was the mother type for the zebra, cross-breeding with a variant should result in the quagga, even immediately 4. Reproductive isolation A typical phenomenon is that some species can have offspring together, like the horse and the donkey, which however is then not fertile (any more). In some cases, sub-species which are known to be descended from the same species cannot produce offspring together at all, such as the Ensatina salamanders.
Figure 6,
Seven.... Hier mist een zin subspecies may interbreed with variants living in neighboring or overlapping ranges, but cannot interbreed with individuals from more distant parts of the cline. The cline extends through the costal and Sierra Nevada mountains of California. The arrows indicate sites where subspecies have “jumped” across geographical regions in which no Ensatina subspecies live.Biology, pp. 1058
Figure 7, A can cross with B and B can cross with C, but not A with C.
This phenomenon is called reproductive isolation: reproduction no longer occurs between sub-species which are descended from each other. The causes for that can vary widely:1. Ecological isolation: Different sections of the environment are used.
2. Behavioural isolation: Behavioural difference result in a cessation of mating.
3. Mechanical isolation: Reproduction can no longer occur, because the reproductive organs are no longer accessible.
4. Gamete-isolation: Egg and sperm cells can no longer join together on a molecular level.
5. Time-related isolation: The time at which the species mates differs so greatly that almost no crossing occurs.
6. Non-viability: The hybrids die before reaching reproductive age.
7. Sterility: Hybrids are infertile.
8. Hybrid-breakdown: Reduced viability or fertility in the second or later generations.
Explanation:In the first place, it cannot be other than that the Creator® meant for varieties to come into existence; otherwise there would not be such an abundance of neutral genes and those specialised mechanisms to bring about variation would not exist. If varieties were to be crossed with each other for a long time, the tendency would always be present to return to the ur-type. If Darwin’s pigeons mate in the wild, the rock pigeon will result. That would mean that if varieties originate in the wild, it would be very easy for them to regress to the ur-type, if there were no mechanism which prevented cross-breeding in related species. In other words, it is actually logical that this happens.On the other hand, the last three phenomena (6, 7, and 8) worry me. The reader has already noticed a considerable aversion towards everything in disorder, which is not ‘neatly’ arranged (that is to say, caused by designed proteins). These last three phenomena are not ‘neatly arranged’. They do not indicate a design, they do not indicate that ‘some thought has gone into this’. It is more a matter of ‘give it a try’, if it doesn’t work, oh too bad. It clashes with my idea of an intelligent Creator® who thought it up as it is. It more indicates degeneration: the genome of a variant can, because of the different forms of degeneration, deviate to such a degree from the original that ‘problems’ arise in cross-breeding. It could for instance be possible that in recombination, pieces of non-homologous chromosome are exchanged. In inbreeding, this can result in a variant which is no longer compatible with other variants, and in cross-breeding, one of the ‘strange effects’ named above could result.Still, something more needs to be said. Actually, I expect (predominantly in the lower types) that there is also a genetic mechanism which makes it impossible for variants to have offspring, which is arranged more ‘neatly’ than the just-let-the-foetus-develop-and-we-will-see-if-it-works method. This could be in what is mentioned in point 4 as molecular barriers for fertilisation, since there could be neutral genes[6] which cause variation in the receptors of gametes. An egg cell and a sperm cell must ‘recognise’ each other before the chain reaction can be initiated which brings about fertilisation. If such a legal variability in gamete-recognition does indeed occur, that strengthens the case for the ur-types, because a designed, intentional, regulated genetic mechanism is then seen, which must bring about differentiation from the ur-types, must prevent ‘everything tending towards the main type’. This needs to be raised to prediction status.Prediction:In some types (predominantly in the lower species and perhaps especially in insects?), there is a legitimate genetic mechanism, which is not based on mutation or degeneration, which furthers differentiation of variants by making it impossible for them to fertilised each other. Perhaps this has something to do with gamete-recognition.As far as the salamanders are concerned[7], there are two possibilities. Either it is a form of degeneration, or it is a form of intentional, because it is arranged by genes, differentiation. In the first case, the whole genome has gotten compatibility, and it is less homologous to the mother type. In the second case, it is homologous, but no fertilisation takes place. 5. An explosion in variationSome of the most dramatic random changes in gene frequencies take place when individuals leave a large population and take up residence away from other members of their own species. If these few “pioneers” succeed in starting a new population, its gene pool[8] will reflect only the genotypes that happen to be present in the founders. As a result, the new gene pool may differ substantially from that of the original population; for example, there may be, by change, a higher frequency of a rare allele or a lower frequency of certain alleles that are common in the parental gene pool. This kind of change in gene frequecies is called the founder effect. Biology, pp. 1025For instance: two people of the 200 founders of the Amish community in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, had the recessive allele for Ellis-van Creveld syndrome, which in homozygotic carriers causes shortened limbs and six fingers on each hand. In this community (where people do not marry outsiders), this deviation occurs more often than anywhere else in the world!A special form of the founder-effect happens every season when many individuals in a large population (especially the young) die, and only a few are able to reproduce after the winter. This is called a bottleneck.
figure 8, the bottleneck effect, biology pp.422
Edwin Bryant, from the university in Houston, carried out an experiment in which he bred further with 1, 4, and 16 pairs from a population of a few thousand house flies. The expectation was that there would be less variation after this bottleneck than in the large population, because of course there are more different alleles in flies in a large population than in a small one.The unexpected result was greatly increased variability in the postbottleneck population. Those houseflies had more variable wing sizes and shapes, head proportions, and limb dimensions as a result. No accepted explanation of this counterintuitive finding has appeared, but it is clear that population geneticists cannot predict with confidence the consequenses of bottlenecks.Biology, pp. 1026In living nature, something similar can occur:An enterprising British scientist, E. B. Ford of Oxford University, showed that normalizing selection does not always follow this pattern. An avid observer of moths and butterflies, Ford kept track of the phenotypes of a population of marsh fritillary butterflies for fifteen years. When he began, the population was small and highly homogeneous in size, body shape, and wing-color patterns. Suddenly, however, a four-year population explosion toke place, and during this time, butterflies showed a great variation in both color patterns and basic body morphology. Then the population stabilized again, larger than before, with a “new” phenotype that was quite distinct from the original one. Ford could not establish the exact cause of the remarkable changes.Biology, pp. 1037
Figure 9, An explosion in variation with subsequent stabilisation
Explanation:These are two examples of what I will call an explosion in variation; the first seems to be in conflict with the founder-effect.The founder-effect is in principle always an impoverishment of genetic material. It is possible that a number of neutral genes are lost, because they are not taken to the new population by any individual, and the chance of deviations increases because if there is damage present in tolerant (as in the case of the Amish) or essential genes, the chance is much greater that they spread throughout the population. The increased chance of inbreeding of course plays a significant part in this.However, one side-effect of the founder-effect is a small explosion in variation! It is a logical consequence, since the chance that a neutral gene is ‘turned off’ homozygotically in a large population is nowhere near as large as in a small population. In a large population, such an allele ‘drifts’ through all sorts of individuals in different generations, and only by chance does it happen with higher frequency. The chance that the carrier mates with an individual who has exactly the same allele is therefore small. Only if that happens do you see a difference in appearance, and only then would selection be able to take place for it. However, a bottleneck, as in the founder effect, with the accompanying high degree of inbreeding, ensures that a great many neutral genes which are ‘off’ become homozygotic, and then ‘suddenly’ result in a change in appearance. (Just as a reminder, functional alleles of neutral genes are almost always dominant and will thus only result in a outward or phenotypic effect when they are homozygotically ‘off’.) This will show up in the second generation, because that is where the increased inbreeding plays a part. Depending on the degree of heterozygosis in the founders, there will logically be a larger or smaller explosion in variation from the second generation onwards.This is good for another prediction: Gnus are in a large population, which does not display much variation to the naked eye. If a bottleneck were created of 1, 4, or 16 pairs, then you would be able to discover more variation in the offspring than in the large population.[9] Of course, this will also work for many more species in large populations.The first explosion in variationThis allows us to imagine an interesting phenomenon which must have taken place fairly soon after the creation of the ur-types. All that was needed to fill the earth with the variety we see now, among others, was a pair of each type which is at least together heterozygous for all the neutral genes. That means that for each neutral gene, at least one of the male or female does not have a functional gene on the corresponding place on the other chromosome.[10] The first offspring from these ‘founders’ will then not have looked very different from their parents. Each offspring inherits on average half of the alleles which are ‘on’ and half of the alleles which are ‘off’, but as yet, none of them are homozygotic ‘off’. Only when these offspring breed with each other do a number of genes ‘jump’ to double ‘off’, with the accompanying changes in appearance. Because the ur-types were maximally heterozygous (namely for all neutral genes), an enormous explosion in variation must have taken place fairly soon during their expansion. The offspring naturally looked for all sorts of ‘empty’ new environments, and as a result, a great differentiation arose from the beginning. The trend was set at the beginning, with consequences that we still see in the fact that certain species and sub-species only occur in certain geographic regions. That geographic distribution was caused by the fact that the immediate offspring of the ur-types certainly did not receive all the same functional alleles, and dispersed further and differentiated further. Natural selection (or ‘natural election’) did the rest, so that certain combinations of genes held sway in certain surroundings but did not occur at all in other parts of the world.The process by which ‘gene frequencies’ shift and in the end a number of the original genes are lost and the others get the upper hand in a population, we will call divergence (which is a much better word to describe that process than evolution). The process by which one set of genes disappears from one population and a different set from a different population is then called differentiation. Because both divergence and differentiation take place from the same (ur-)type, it is typological divergence and typological differentiation.The butterfliesWhat could have happened to the swamp butterflies? There are a few possibilities. In the first place, a bottleneck could have taken place with the subsequent explosion in variation, which would mean that the new variants would do better than the previous ones. One reason why that explosion in variation took place at that moment and not in previous years could be that one or more alleles were turned off by mutations, which had always been on before. I remind you that Darwin’s pigeons show a greater variation after differentiation and before breeding back, and that that great variation regresses to one theme, that of the rock pigeon, after mixture. A greater variation can arise from gene loss! This could have happened to the butterflies.Another possibility is that, by cross-breeding with a butterfly from a nearby population, a number of genes were turned on again, which were off at first. That would result in the same kind of explosion in variation, but then not as a result of a bottleneck, but by regression.14.2 Conclusions The phenomena mentioned above lead to the concept of typological differentiation, namely:· going back in time yields one original type; · there is an end to variation within the same species because selection involves genetic impoverishment; · mixing sub-species results in regression to a main type whereas one single sub-species cannot be brought back; · the incapacity to reproduce (by variants); · variation is brought about by the same genes (previous chapter); · the founder effect results in an increase in variation, whereas it is an impoverishment of genetic material. In short, there were ur-types which could not be traced to each other and did not originate from each other, from which all variation originated within those types we now observe. The origin of that variation is differentiation from the ur-type on. The variants are genetically poorer than the ur-type itself! A fanning out and multiplication thus takes place from the ur-type on, but that fanning out goes downwards. Each sub-species keeps, preserves, conserves different genes in the environment in which it lives than a sister species which lives in different circumstance. Reynard the Fox and Wile E. Coyote descended from the ur-wolf in this way. A certain race can itself fan out again, for instance from the ur-dog to all the dog races which we now have, or from the first collies to all the collie sub-species. Or a race can be mixed with one or more other races in order to go back up the ladder of differentiation a bit, to start again from that point with fanning out and selection.It seems to me that the concept of typological differentiation is so simple, so obvious, and so in agreement with the observations, that a die-hard evolutionist cannot ignore this phenomenon either. Typological differentiation just does exist. The myriad of dog races, which can still be cross-bred with each other, shows this: a lot of variation on the same theme and never across the boundary of the theme or type. If you mix all the races of dogs, you will get the main type back: the ur-dog or perhaps even a wolf-like specimen.The wealth of genes, or the wealth of genetic information, in the ur-type is the problem for the evolution theory. How did they get there? Not by selection, because that is impoverishment. Not by gene growth, because that is impossible. Creation is the only reasonable alternative.
Figure 10, a depiction of Typological Differentiation
In figure 10, I have tried to give a graphic representation of the concept of typological differentiation. The ur-type is at the top, in this case the ur-cow. Three lines start from that point (in reality, it was probably many more). Each line comes to a plateau. That shows a successful sub-species, which is able to flourish in a certain environment and therefore multiplies rapidly. However, one or more lines also go forth from each plateau. They are (for example) individuals or even variants which split off and are then successful in their own way in a different environment and thus also end on a plateau. Because of the founder effect, they are genetically impoverished in comparison with the original species from which they split off. That is why the next plateaus are lower than the previous ones.Finally, from a certain branch, the cow originated and, from another, the auroch. In the beginning, there was only one species. The ur-cow. After time had passed, more variation can be observed, but the potential for variation decreases with each variant. Some variants have only originated recently; others have been able to maintain themselves over long periods of time. Yet others have become extinct.14.3 A comparison with embryonic developmentThe embryonic development of an organism shows in a very simple, clear and I hope convincing way what the concept of typological differentiation involves, and that by the differentiation (that’s what it’s called) of the cells themselves. When a human egg cell is fertilised, this one cell has the potential to grow into everything that makes a human a human. Sex cells can come out of it, but so can liver cells and brain cells, or bone cells to form a skeleton. Mammals have more than a hundred different kinds of cells, while bacteria are made up of only one (kind of) cell. When the fertilised egg begins to divide, the resulting cells can all still develop into any of those hundred specialised cells. Those cells are called totipotent. But at a certain point in time, body shapes become visible and organs and such are formed. The cells begin to specialise. They differentiate. There is no way back for differentiated cells. Once a cell’s fate is determined, no more change is possible.In this small-scale differentiation, you can see an image of large-scale differentiation:· From that one egg cell (i.e. ur-type), all 100 specialised cell types can grow (i.e. the source of all the variation which comes from it). · The egg cell looks nothing like a bone cell, or a nerve cell, but it still has the (genetic) potential within itself to grow into such a cell (i.e. differentiation and variation), and therefore it happens. · A fish embryo (a different type) does not have the same built-in possibility for variation, and that is why the differentiation into a bone cell will never happen in a fish. · A direction, once taken, means that the cell can never switch over to another cell type (i.e. reproductive isolation). Although embryology has been used from the beginning by evolutionists to show the similarities between different types and demonstrate a common ancestry, the differentiation of the ‘totipotent’ egg cell is a dramatic presentation of the opposite: nothing will come out that wasn’t already there – what does come out was already present.14.4 Summary of TD· Life began with ur-types which could not be traced to or from each other, and life consists of main types which cannot be traced to or from each other. The ur-types and the main types are most probably phenotypically almost identical. The ur-types, however, were at least heterozygous for all their neutral genes. The main types originate by crossing all the daughter variants and will become completely homozygous only with great difficulty. · There is one mother type for the various daughter variants, which is the source of all the variability which flows forth from it. That source consists in fact of the abundance of neutral genes, which permit themselves to be turned ‘off’ (which is (mostly?) becoming homozygotic recessive) or become damaged. · Differentiation is the process by which the built-in variation is expressed, a daughter variant ‘goes in a certain direction’, in other words that a few neutral genes make a definitive place for themselves as homozygotic recessive in a population, because that gives an adaptive advantage. This means that genetic information is lost in the daughter variant. It is a genetic impoverishment. · Natural selection determines which combination of neutral genes is most favourable in different or changing circumstances. · Degeneration (namely: mutation, chromosomal reordering, deletions, internal viruses, duplications, and the suchlike) can affect the genome of a daughter variant and alienate it from other daughter variants or even from the main type to such a degree that crossing is no longer possible and/or no longer results in viable offspring. · ‘Breeding back’ to a previous point of divergence (the point at which two or more daughter variants separated ways) is possible by cross-breeding between those daughter variants. That is therefore inevitably another increase in genetic material! ‘Uphill’!!! That has the illusion of evolution: mixing genetic material. But that is only possible because the daughter variants belong to the same type. Just like differentiation is an impoverishment, mixing is an enrichment. In one daughter variant, one group of neutral genes was off; in the other, another was turned off. By mixing, the offspring receives the original functional alleles back from both groups of neutral genes. This ‘mixing’ can only happen if at least all essential genes are exactly identical![11] · The closer a variant is to the ur-type, the more potential for variation. The more differentiated it is, the more variation that can be observed, but the less potential for variation the sub-species have. · Mixing the sub-species yields the main type; the main type cannot return from one sub-species which breeds true, mixing with other sub-species is always necessary; the other functional genes must come from them. · A species never ‘climbs’ higher than the variable part of its genome allows. ur-type The heterozygotic link from which all variation within the same species has come, which we can still observe today and in the fossil records. The ur-wolf and the ur-cow are examples. The ur-types no longer exist and have probably never been fossilised, because the variation which came from them was enormous and began working immediately.
mixed type The result of cross-breeding between two different variants, also called hybrids.
original type The species from which two or more sub-variants descended. An example is the dog, from which the many dog races are descended. The ur-wolf is the original type for the wolf and the dog. The dog is the original type for the greyhound and the Great Dane.
main type The sum or cross of all variants within the same type (insofar as they are still able to produce offspring). This cross-breeding could result in a species which strongly resembles the ur-type.
type Every type has had one link with ur-types, has many original types and ends towards one main type in cross-breeding. Two types which differ from each other have never had a common ancestor.
Geneticwealth in %
Figure 11, 3 sub-species and the connection between the type-names
intermezzomixed race in humansThese matters lead to a surprising conclusion: the more mixing of human races, the ‘healthier’, or at any rate genetically richer, the offspring will be. The example of the Amish shows that clearly. Whenever these people mix with other population groups, the Ellis-van Creveld syndrome would (almost) not need to occur at all. By mixing, the offspring returns (a bit) to the main type, which is richer in genetic material that the differentiated sub-races. The chance of inbreeding and with that the chance of visibility (or homozygosis) for a great deal of hereditary diseases is many times smaller when you have children with someone from another people than with someone from your own village, where people have lived for hundreds of years and married each other and had children, and then remained in the village. Mixed race is the best defence against degeneration. That also shows that Hitler had it totally wrong! Hitler applied Darwin’s principles of the right of the strongest, survival of the fittest and adaptation to humans and human races. This, by the way, was completely based on Darwin’s text: The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied,encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions, as indeed is obvious in respect to most of them, must be answered in the affirmative, in the same manner as with the lower animals.Charles Darwin, The Descent of ManThe Aryan race was better and deserved more lebensraum. The surrounding peoples were of lesser quality and could be exterminated without compunction (‘extinction’, remember? The law of Malthus, see chapter 2). There were special houses where women could be fertilised with good Aryan seed. The Jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped and homosexuals all had to be killed, because that was evolutionary waste, which would only interfere with further development. Few people realise that Hitler’s greatest inspiration for the Endlösung came from Darwin! Darwin would not have wanted that himself, but the fact remains that Hitler followed Darwin’s principles to their logical conclusion and that poisoned the world of ideas of nearly the entire German people. For clarity’s sake, here is a quote from Ernst Haeckel, a contemporary of Darwin, a fanatic advocate of the evolution idea and founder of the evolutionary view of embryology, from his book The History of Creation: "If one must draw a sharp boundary between them, it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilzed man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals..""Thus for example, a great english traveller, who lived for a considerable time on the west coast of Africa, says: "I consider the negro to be a lower species of man, and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother', for the gorrilla would them also have to admitted into the family" It is now apparent that Hitler’s intentions had precisely the opposite effect. Jews from all over the world came together in Israel: Ethiopian Jews, Russian Jews, American Jews, etc. Their mixture will result in ‘healthier’ offspring, with a greatly decreased risk of hereditary diseases, than the separatist offspring of many racist groups! The Dutch policy of allowing many foreigners to live in our country will therefore, as far as general health is concerned and therefore also the costs of health care, in the long run will only bear positive fruit...On the other hand, the seeds of racism lie enclosed within the evolution idea.
If it is about the conservation of species of animals that are threatened with extinction, in some (!) cases it would perhaps be good to breed a hybrid from several sub-species, which is therefore once more so rich in genes that it can differentiate again and thus could survive in different environments. This is in direct contrast to keeping the many sub-species separate, or, due to the money and effort involved, only a few of them.For instance, if Darwin’s finches were to be saved from extinction, they could more advantageously be crossed with each other to the type from which all the others also originated, than all be preserved as separate species. From this hybrid- or main-type finch, new variants can then emerge which can deal much better with other living conditions than the sub-species that have already split off and specialised.
TYPDIF FAQ questions about the concept of typological differentiation null variants
:Do null variants, sub-species in which all neutral genes are off, exist? If they do, then every sub-species should be able to be brought to that nul-variant, even if it is by another path, by sequential elimination of every neutral gene. Just as cross-breeding with each other produces the main type, so a continually progressing impoverishment should lead to the same ‘sub-species’.
:I suspect that there is not one kind of nul variant, although you might expect it.· In the first place, the diversity is so enormous, even with a few hundred neutral genes, that we will never experience different isolated variants being brought to the same nul variant. · In the second place, I think that, other than the structural genes, there is also other genetic information which brings about that variation (see chapter 12), in which the story about being ‘on’ or ‘off’ will not make much difference. · Thirdly, degeneration in non-neutral genes makes trouble. · This means that there will not be any real nul types, but that there could be different end stations. Living fossils may be such end stations, because they have not been able to change at all over a long period of time. the fossils and the geological column
:The fossils show that evolution happened.
: The fossils show that variation exists. The geological column, with the accompanying time scale, is put together along the specifications of the assumed evolutionary development from low to high complexity. Many of the dating methods were then manipulated to fit this column.These matters go so fat that they really need a separate treatment. There is no (more) room left in the framework of this book. But it is possible that the conclusion of this book – the evolution theory has come to an end – could lead to the reinterpretation of the geological column!By the way, it is undoubtedly the case that the species found among the fossils are closer to the ur-type than the species we find today.Much fossilisation happened because of catastrophic occurrences with mass extinction. Extinction is a special form of the founder effect and therefore promotes impoverishment and differentiation. It is therefore to be expected that fossilised forms deviate significantly from the present forms. Typological Differentiation and Punctuated Equilibrium
:How are the ideas of typological differentiation and Punctuated Equilibrium related?
Punctuated Equilibrium says that: · The present species originated by the splitting off of sub-species from the main population, instead of the main population transforming itself. This results in a multiplication of sub-species; · The period of transition is short compared with the time span of the entire species; emphasised adaptation leads to quick separation and thus origination of a sub-species; · Specialisation that splits off occurs one or two times during the entire existence of a sub-species; · In the fossils, we see abrupt transitions, not gradual ones; · Evolution progresses in short leaps. In other words: PE and TD look a lot like each other!That is because PE is mainly based on findings which were observed and not on ideas which were made up. I have tried to do the same with TD.The difference lies in the fact that TD adds to PE by saying that differentiation is simultaneously an impoverishment of genetic material. That is also a statement based on fact; just think of the founder effect.TD then comes to the conclusion, on that basis, that variation began with and originated from ur-types which cannot be derived from each other, whereas PE (still) says that all species can be traced back to common ancestors.TD then says that the ‘leaps’ are caused by genes that are already present (in the type or population) which are on or off.I think that TD is the logical sequel to PE, and that TD encompasses PE without animosity, but that PE will probably have some difficulty with TD.TD actually explains why PE is observed.Generalists and specialists
:What is the relation of typological differentiation to the discussion about generalists and specialists?
: Generalists are species which, as it were, have ‘a bit of everything’. Specialists are species which have specialised (like for example the koala bear or the cheetah) in a certain environment, or in a certain diet. Generalists survive more easily, because they can adapt to altered circumstances more simply. If the environment in which a specialist lives changes, it has a big chance of extinction.This relates well with the idea of typological differentiation, which actually says that the ur-types had the potential to ‘specialise’ in several directions. If a generalist sets itself, for whatever reason, to one specific way of survival, the degeneration law (see chapter 11) says that it will in the long run lose those characteristics which it no longer needs. That makes it a specialist. The specialists have been able to set themselves to one specific way of survival, but because of the genetic impoverishment which goes hand-in-hand with specialisation, they are no longer as flexible in dealing with new changes. Simply put, you could say: the closer to the ur-type, the more of a generalist it is; the more differentiated, the more a species has become specialist.The Cheetah Conservation Foundation writes at its Internet site:Evolution eliminates traits in organisms that are least suited for survival. Some of the decline in the cheetah’s genetic diversity is accounted for by its specialization through natural selection. The decrease in genetic diversity resulting from natural selection has benefited the species’ survival as it has made the cheetah better adapted to its environment. However, the effects of this occurrence are small when compared to the effects of the inbreeding that occurred 10,000[12] years ago from a population bottleneck.It can be clear that specialisation is not evolution in the sense of macro-evolution, but also involves genetic impoverishment, and that the consequence of inbreeding must actually be called [1] In practice of course degeneration also occurred.
[2] Although I realise this may be difficult to test. There is little fossil DNA. Is it possible to determine what is a gene and what is not? And it seems very difficult to me to figure out if a fossil gene is ‘on’ or ‘off’. However, who knows what we will yet discover, and who knows what new techniques will make possible? So, for whatever it’s worth then...
[3] If Fool Coincidence plays a game, a mutation could perhaps be undone again.
[4] The breeders of that time believed that their special races of pigeons were almost all original species of pigeons which were not descended from the rock pigeon.
[5] At least in one of the two populations, but probably in both, certain genes are on in contrast to genes in the other population which are off. By mutation, those genes can still turn off, which could result in a sort of turnaround effect. However, this can never go so far that high becomes completely low and vice versa. In the most extreme scenario, all genes would be on in one population, and in the other all genes would be off. In that case, the first could be retraced to the second by mutation, but the second could never go back to the first.
[6] Or a completely different genetic mechanism?
[7] It was not clear to me from the description whether cross-breeding just ‘did not occur’, or was really genetically impossible. However, it is conceivable that there are cases in which it does not ‘work’ genetically between A and C whereas it does work between A + B and B + C. I will continue on this premise.
[8] The sum of all occurring alleles in a population.
[9] Assuming that gnus are not already an ‘end station’, and that they are very heterozygotic.
[10] Say AaBBCc… x AABbCC..., or AaBbCc… x AABBCC…, or AaBbCc… x AaBbCc…, or even AaBbCc… A*a*B*b*C*c*… (in which the * represents a non-derivative version of A, B or C, and thus a completely different allele.) This last seems most probable to me, because that will result in the most variation. For the rest of the explanation, I will work with the first situation, in order not to make it too complicated.
[11] It is even possible to breed back to an imaginary point of divergence, because if two sub-species are crossed which have each gone a long way, their crossing will yield a new phenotype which has never been seen before! Suppose ten genes are involved in the divergence of two sub-species. In the original type, they are all on, in one sub-type only 1, 2, and 3 are on, and in the other 8, 9, and 10. The first originated because for example 10 to 4 went off in that order, and in the other 1 to 7 went off in that order. There has therefore never before been a species in which 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 were on, but by crossing the two sub-species, it comes into existence, and there is then a variant which had never occurred before and is richer than either of the two sub-species.
[12] That ten thousand years seems like it was pulled out of a hat. At that time, cheetahs were still spread across the entire world. Others say that the bottleneck occurred only a few decades ago, due to farmers shooting cheetahs, because they were attacking their livestock.