nPeace
Veteran Member
Sorry.I don't know why you're alerting me.
Why are the loss of eyes and wings not due to natural selection...
No Wings
No Eyes
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Sorry.I don't know why you're alerting me.
I don't know that they aren't due to that.Sorry.
Why are the loss of eyes and wings not due to natural selection...
No Wings
No Eyes
The researcher tell us these are all mutations. They are mutant flies being studied in laboratories. The eyes are not just there and useless. They are none - completely gone, like the wings.I don't know that they aren't due to that.
Such things happen in caves, eg, loss of eyes.
I'm not familiar with these critters.The researcher tell us these are all mutations. They are mutant flies being studied in laboratories. The eyes are not just there and useless. They are none - completely gone, like the wings.
Because these are actual mutations, not sexual variation. Nature did not select and propagate these features. In the wild they'd be eliminated immediately.Sorry.
Why are the loss of eyes and wings not due to natural selection...
Do you mean a combination of variation and reproduction?Because these are actual mutations, not sexual variation. Nature did not select and propagate these features. In the wild they'd be eliminated immediately.
I mean reproduction of offspring different from the parents creates variation in a population, enabling faster adaptation to changing conditions than an invariant population.Do you mean a combination of variation and reproduction?
So basically reproduction is all we need. Just mixing genes, and we get more variation.
Haven't you been reading these posts and links? There have always been tuskless elephants. It's not a new thing. All that's happening is an increase in their percentage in the population, due to the tusked ones being culled by ivory hunters.So you are saying that the mutant fly would not survive in the wild. Why do you believe tusk-less elements would?
Thank God you and your family are not mutants.I mean reproduction of offspring different from the parents creates variation in a population, enabling faster adaptation to changing conditions than an invariant population.
Most variation is the result of gene mixing during reproduction, not embryonic mutations.
I'm one of four children. All of us were different. None of us were mutants.
...and the flies.Haven't you been reading these posts and links? There have always been tuskless elephants. It's not a new thing. All that's happening is an increase in their percentage in the population, due to the tusked ones being culled by ivory hunters.
It's just like farmers breeding chickens or dogs. Breed the ones with features you want and eliminate the others. Over generations the selected features will increase in the population. That's how we got mastiffs and chihuahuas from wolves. That's what we're doing to the elephants.
truth be told, I have been called a freak, though...Thank God you and your family are not mutants.
The fly variations are mutations, caused by a de novo genetic defect in a single individual. This particular variation is so dysfunctional that it would never be passed on in Nature....and the flies.
This is my point.
Okay, so tell me, what is the difference between the flies and the elephants. Both reproduce, in controlled conditions. Both product variations - In fact the flies produce faster, and in more quantity. Both have mutations. Both would be in some way affected by selection.
Just be patient with me.
What makes the difference?
Who hasn't?truth be told, I have been called a freak, though...
Evidence?The fly variations are mutations, caused by a de novo genetic defect in a single individual. This particular variation is so dysfunctional that it would never be passed on in Nature.
Evidence?The tuskless elephants are normal variations, like red hair or left handedness. They are not mutations.
Selection
So when does selection work in nature? a) sometimes b) every time c) random ?is the process by which variations are sorted out. It can be either natural or human engineered.
Evidence?Organisms born with variations that help them in their particular environment are more likely to thrive, breed and raise young to adulthood. They not only tend to leave more offspring, but their offspring are more likely to have the helpful variation -- to pass on in turn.
Evidence?Thus the helpful variation increases in frequency among the population, over many years.
Of course, if the variation is dysfunctional -- like a trunkless elephant or eyeless fruit fly, it's quickly weeded out of the population.
Do you seriously believe blind flies would last long in Nature? Are you aware of such a population?Who hasn't?
Evidence?
They're a normal variation in the population.Evidence?
It's always working.So when does selection work in nature? a) sometimes b) every time c) random ?
There are whole libraries of evidence!Evidence?
Oh come off it. You're just flinging poo.Evidence?
So you have no evidence.Do you seriously believe blind flies would last long in Nature? Are you aware of such a population?
You have not given me any evidence. You just repeat claims, which I am under no obligation to consider, or accept.They're a normal variation in the population.
Consider: Exactly the same de novo mutation occurring that often, at a stable percentage, in so widespread a population, over centuries? Seriously?
What evidence is there that blue eyes or red hair aren't mutations?
So it doesn't catch and fix all problems apparently.It's always working.
Many things appear to have existed unchanged from the beginning, However, I believe everything has adapted in one way or other, even if not noticeable to the human eye.There are whole libraries of evidence!
This has been observed in Nature and in human agriculture and husbandry for centuries. It's easily reproduced in vitro.
Do you seriously believe every current plant and animal has existed unchanged from the beginning? Chihuahuas? 'Fancy' goldfish? Dwarf goats? Jersey cattle? Cabbage? Maize? Potatoes? Nylon-eating bacteria?
What???Oh come off it. You're just flinging poo.
I don't even know what mechanism you are talking about, since you can't seem to begin to explain or show any working. So I am not sure how to respond.Now my turn.
The mechanisms proposed by biologists are observable and testable. We see them at work all the time. They can fully account for the variation we observe.
You're proposing an unnecessary, never observed and fantastical extra step in an empirically well known system. You're positing magic as a reasonable and common occurrance.
Magic poofing has never been observed, obviously can't be tested and, in the light of known mechanisms, is an extraneous, unneeded step in an already functional process.