highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
So if I retain my clothes on in October when it's cold here in Sweden you take that as a sign of evolution?
It is not blindingly obvious that natural selection is at work here. You are just assuming that.
|
Your analogy is wrong Slimebeast, why? Because the ability to provide warmth for oneself is an inheritable trait, and those that are able to provide warmth for themselves better are less likely to freeze to death and not reproduce. (For what it's worth you might as well be arguing that "dogs grow coats, therefore evolution is false", when the dogs with the thick coats in cold climate are more likely to survive). Natural selection is beyond well documented and has been known for over 150 years (and subconsciously even longer, with selective breeding).
I am by no means "assuming" this, I know. And this is just another case of this process, just another case of the peppered moth.
Your whole argument rests on the notion that genetic traits aren't inheritable. So what is it? Are these traits not inheritable?
|
Again you are putting things that are not needed for the observations in that article.
Pretend these snakes have a sensitivity to temperature in their egg regulating hormone system. The hormone stimulates the spasms of the egg chamber inside the snake. Hot weather triggers an increase in hormone levels and cold weather triggers a decrease in levels.
Natural selection has nothing to do with it.
You theorize about what happens after those snakes get isolated from each other in cold and hot regions. That may lead to unique traits or it may not.
You accept that what we observe here is one step of evolution of egg laying to mammalian-type live birth. Now if that is in fact evolution between egg and live birth right in front of our eyes, then there should also be examples of the other steps (since this supposedly happened several times independently in evolutionary history). Then please show me some other egg-placenta middle forms. Now I am not even sure such creatures exist but I don't think they do and I assume they don't. But according to your theory they should.
|
Those that are better at producing the hormones in cold weather are more likely to produce offspring which share that ability, seems like a perfect example of natural selection to me.
Also, I don't think this is a step towards mammalian birth, I think this maybe something new, you've just assumed that position of me.
But yet again you've avoided my question. My question is concerning the fact that these animals can pass on their traits, and the strong survive to do so. That is exactly what this is. All you've got to do is prove to me that either the most fit don't survive or that genetic traits are not passed on from one generation to the next. Yet you've avoided this question twice now!
Your postulation that this is not evolution rests on the notion that the fit members of a population do not have the ability to pass on their genes. Please, show this to me; the burden of proof is one you. In fact I think every biology department of every top university in the world would be interested in this.
|
You don't get it. These snakes already have a system fully functional for both environments, cold as well as warm. You just assume they should get an advantage by becoming better at producing hormones. But the hormone production is already there, fully functional, regulated and adaptive - when it's hot eggs are hatched when it's cold eggs are retained! In that article there is nothing to suggest your scenario of further adaptation is needed.
That is not an example of evolution. You have the burden of proof to show that the northerners are genetically changed regarding regulation of live birth due to the cold environment.
But as for your question, yes I believe in natural selection.
