White fox

[Greyman 29,289]

40 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

Colour variation in badgers does seem a bit more common than in foxes doesn’t it. I sort of wondered if it’s because it’s not particularly disadvantageous to a a badger to be an abnormal colour so they don’t suffer as much. As in a fox is much more of a stealth hunter so dependant on concealment, whereas a badger isn’t. I’d not really considered their likeliness to inbreed due to their respective living behaviours. But now you mention it 

Mustilids in general seem to have a lot of white variants for some reason  

[Francie 6,368]

5 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

If neither you or I know what the red foxes ancestor is we can’t say it’s a throwback, which funny enough, I wasn’t. Lol.

Whether or not the white was caused by a recent mutation or an inherited recessive colour variant from an ancient mutation isn’t really the point. It doesn’t propagate successfully because it’s likely not advantageous. 

If it's not advantageous then if we done an experiment an released a certain amount of red fox to Antarctica,would they survive?

Or vice versa?

[Greb147 6,809]

1 minute ago, Francie said:

Ok well how did natural selection select the fox to be red an the fox to be white?

Envoirment you might say,but if the fox moved to a new envoirment,by your own logic it wouldn't survive lol

It had survived or else it wouldn't have been running about. 

They don't really have any natural predators and food is easier to source, it's no surprise that individuals can flourish. 

[Born Hunter 17,832]

8 minutes ago, Francie said:

Ok well how did natural selection select the fox to be red an the fox to be white?

Envoirment you might say,but if the fox moved to a new envoirment,by your own logic it wouldn't survive lol

No not by my logic, by yours. It might survive just fine, it’d depend on the environment. Just because white isn’t advantageous in the uk doesn’t mean red isn’t elsewhere too. And quite clearly it is.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Born Hunter

[Francie 6,368]

Just now, Greb147 said:

It had survived or else it wouldn't have been running about. 

They don't really have any natural predators and food is easier to source, it's no surprise that individuals can flourish. 

Yeah exactly that's my point,this natural selection malarkey is false imo

As you say if this individual can flourish,then others could to depending on envoirment?

[Born Hunter 17,832]

1 minute ago, Francie said:

If it's not advantageous then if we done an experiment an released a certain amount of red fox to Antarctica,would they survive?

Or vice versa?

I said white wasn’t advantageous in the uk based on the fact that the colour variant doesn’t propagate well and remains rare. We’d need to do your experiment to test your theory.

[Francie 6,368]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

No not by my logic, by yours. It might survive just fine, it’d depend on the environment. Just because white is advantageous in the uk doesn’t mean red isn’t elsewhere too. And quite clearly it is.

Yeah so that means natural selection is porkies,its all to do with envoirment as you say.

 

[Born Hunter 17,832]

1 minute ago, Francie said:

Yeah so that means natural selection is porkies,its all to do with envoirment as you say.

 

LOL, no just you don’t understand it at all.

[Francie 6,368]

7 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I said white wasn’t advantageous in the uk based on the fact that the colour variant doesn’t propagate well and remains rare. We’d need to do your experiment to test your theory.

Yeah be interesting,but by going on what you say in some point back in time when the red fox moved to Antarctica or vice versa,they would of had to 'evolve' an change colour?

But your confusing me now,because that means all the different fox species would of had to evolve in a short time?

How does that work?

Your saying I dont understand but your not explaining it very well.

You said earlier thecwhite fox here is a mutation an would die of or should because of natural.selection,but wee seethe fox an many other whites surving were natural selection says they shouldn't.

Its contradictive born?

Edited February 6, 2021 by Francie

[Francie 6,368]

Your saying earlier to that you cant throw back to cousins,but what about dogs,they don it all the time?

It should not be called a mutation its dna obviously has the code for white,its not a mutation.

[Born Hunter 17,832]

13 minutes ago, Francie said:

Yeah be interesting,but by going on what you say in some point back in time when the red fox moved to Antarctica or vice versa,they would of had to 'evolve' an change colour?

But your confusing me now,because that means all the different fox species would of had to evolve in a short time?

How does that work?

Why did the arctic have to come from the red or vice versa? That's an assumption. They might have come from a some other common fox ancestor.

Why would they have had to adapt to their new environment in a short time? When a species migrates it doesn't catch a flight at Heathrow and is in a new continent by tea time! LOL. They adapt as fast or slow as they need to and evolution allows them to. If their current form is sufficient to survive then adaptations will propagate throughout the species as and when those mutations occur. If a certain mutation is critical then all those without it will die off leaving only individuals with it to form the species, making the mutation 'normal. Eventually with sufficient difference speciation happens. Ie why we have red foxes and arctic foxes.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Born Hunter

[Born Hunter 17,832]

1 minute ago, Francie said:

Your saying earlier to that you cant throw back to cousins,but what about dogs,they don it all the time?

It should not be called a mutation its dna obviously has the code for white,its not a mutation.

Dogs do not throw BACK to cousins, unless the cousin is also a grandparent or great grandparent. By definition throw BACK.

[Francie 6,368]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

Dogs do not throw BACK to cousins, unless the cousin is also a grandparent or great grandparent. By definition throw BACK.

Well iv seen dogs that wee related an there the same colours?

[Born Hunter 17,832]

1 minute ago, Francie said:

Well iv seen dogs that wee related an there the same colours?

Yeah sure, and that colour quite likely came from a common ancestor. It certainly didnt come from each other as theyre not in eithers parentage. They're cousins, they can't be responsible for each other genetics can they.

[Francie 6,368]

1 minute ago, Born Hunter said:

Yeah sure, and that colour quite likely came from a common ancestor. It certainly didnt come from each other as theyre not in eithers parentage. They're cousins, they can't be responsible for each other genetics can they.

If there lingered or interbred why not?

So which ancestor will they take colours from?

How far ye goin back?

Would the pomeranian colours go back to the doberman colours?