Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Cat, I can't think of any evidence that suggests that survival traits are lost in genes. In the case you mention of plants bred to be resistant, their reversal to an older type in the absence of the threat is a simple reversion to a 'setting' which is quite recent. If we carried antibodies to every disease that has ever existed we wouldn't have room for our blood to function properly. So the genes only pass a trait on for a few generations if it has no current survival value.
As to the behaviour of domestic animals that is nurture not nature. We have bred traits into domestic animals which make them less likely to survive in the wild, things like loss of cryptic colouration, and shortening of the skeleton, and it has been proven that in feral populations these traits quickly disappear due to natural selection, but there is no evidence that there is a permanent deterioration in behaviour once the necessary survival skills have been relearned. There is sometimes alteration in behaviour, but behaviour is altering all the time in wild populations too.
Animartco, in part you are right. However, no amount of learned survival skills would help Teacup Chiwawa survive in absence of humans. Also, when you say that traits of domestic animals that disappear in wild population, they disappear due to infusion of genes from interbreeding with other wild populations. Thus, the "feral" population is not genetically the same as domestic.
Besides, you cannot judge the wild dog survival skills as long as there is a constant source of food - human trash. They do not need to hunt the prey to survive. So, your guess is as good as mine how many of them will survive if they have to compete with wolves for the rabbits...
What do you think of this argument? Read the article and watch the video at the end:
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell ... thint.html
So now mathematicians are bigger experts on evolution than biologists are?
I really don't think he presented anything new (I haven't watched the video, but I guess it's about the same he wrote, why would he put it there otherwise, right?).
Of course the fossils records do not contain the missing links. Because simply whenever we discover something new, some so-far-missing link, it becomes new species and creates two new missing links. The amount of fossils is limited, thus we cannot expect to detect all species that ever lived on the planet.
As of the useless increments, I'd suggest to watch this video:
Further, you should study the frozen evolution, if you have problem with that.
Living organisms always break the second thermodynamic law! What is the point anyway? That we were created because otherwise the second thermodynamics law would not work?
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
I am a molecular biologist. I am not a creationist. I have a problem with "evolution" from single cell microbe to multicellular organism for several reasons:
1. First there is no direct experimental molecular evidence of gene gain in bacteria.
2. From biochemical standpoint, survival of the species is better optimized in bacteria. Being multicellular is an evolutionary disadvantage when it comes to survival.
3. Most archeological "knowledge" related to evolution is based on opinions and interpretations of incomplete and partially calculated data. Thus, the data is only as good as the algorithms used by the program and its creator...
I am not here to promote any defined alternative theory. I just want others to THINK about the flaws of the current one.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests