Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kylie" data-source="post: 76866400" data-attributes="member: 343110"><p>I know you weren't replying to me here, but I'll take this opportunity to say that the word "survivability" should really be taken to mean the <em>gene's</em> survival.</p><p></p><p>If a gene causes the individual that has it to have a slightly greater chance to reproduce, then that gene has a slightly great chance of being passed into any offspring.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know it doesn't mean "will be", it's not a guarantee. But I did provide a specific example of how that works immediately afterwards.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think my example demonstrates the process by which the gene for the particular trait would tend to become more common within the population.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How about a real-world example?</p><p></p><p>Elephants have large front teeth called tusks which they use for many things. Digging for water, stripping bark from trees for food, competing with other elephants for mates and social status. Over countless generations, natural selection has favoured those individuals with larger tusks - the individuals with larger tusks have had advantages hat help the reproduce. They find it easier to dig for water. They find it easier to strip bark. When they compete against other elephants, their large tusks make it more likely they will win.</p><p></p><p>But hunters have added a very strong selection pressure that selects AGAINST the genes that produce large tusks. They target the elephants with the largest tusks and kill them for the ivory. Since they target the animals with the largest tusks, these individuals are more likely to die young, and so have fewer chances to pass on the "large tusk gene" to their offspring.</p><p></p><p>As a result of this, the elephant populations are starting to evolve to have smaller tusks. This is a direct result of the selective pressure that the hunters are putting on the elephants. The gene that produces large tusks carries with it a much higher risk, while genes for smaller tusks carry a benefit - it makes the elephant with the "smaller tusk gene" less likely to be killed, and thus the smaller tusked elephants are more likely to produce more offspring simply by virtue of the fact that they are living longer than their large-tusked herdmates.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048336907/elephants-tuskless-ivory-poaching-africa" target="_blank">Elephants have evolved to be tuskless because of ivory poaching, a study finds</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kylie, post: 76866400, member: 343110"] I know you weren't replying to me here, but I'll take this opportunity to say that the word "survivability" should really be taken to mean the [I]gene's[/I] survival. If a gene causes the individual that has it to have a slightly greater chance to reproduce, then that gene has a slightly great chance of being passed into any offspring. I know it doesn't mean "will be", it's not a guarantee. But I did provide a specific example of how that works immediately afterwards. I think my example demonstrates the process by which the gene for the particular trait would tend to become more common within the population. How about a real-world example? Elephants have large front teeth called tusks which they use for many things. Digging for water, stripping bark from trees for food, competing with other elephants for mates and social status. Over countless generations, natural selection has favoured those individuals with larger tusks - the individuals with larger tusks have had advantages hat help the reproduce. They find it easier to dig for water. They find it easier to strip bark. When they compete against other elephants, their large tusks make it more likely they will win. But hunters have added a very strong selection pressure that selects AGAINST the genes that produce large tusks. They target the elephants with the largest tusks and kill them for the ivory. Since they target the animals with the largest tusks, these individuals are more likely to die young, and so have fewer chances to pass on the "large tusk gene" to their offspring. As a result of this, the elephant populations are starting to evolve to have smaller tusks. This is a direct result of the selective pressure that the hunters are putting on the elephants. The gene that produces large tusks carries with it a much higher risk, while genes for smaller tusks carry a benefit - it makes the elephant with the "smaller tusk gene" less likely to be killed, and thus the smaller tusked elephants are more likely to produce more offspring simply by virtue of the fact that they are living longer than their large-tusked herdmates. [URL="https://www.npr.org/2021/10/22/1048336907/elephants-tuskless-ivory-poaching-africa"]Elephants have evolved to be tuskless because of ivory poaching, a study finds[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
Top
Bottom