That was not the result of evolution. It was a little something called adaptation. It is the expression of genetic traits that already exist. Esides, you idiots claim evolution takes milions of years. How long did it take those moths to change color? You people really Crack me up.
Serious question for atheists.
- Thread starter Grugore
- Start date
That was not the result of evolution. It was a little something called adaptation. It is the expression of genetic traits that already exist. Esides, you idiots claim evolution takes milions of years. How long did it take those moths to change color? You people really Crack me up.
It's sick that you do it then refuse to admit it. Pucker up with your black lips, cunt. Next thing we'll hear is that you're having a black bastard baby and you don't the baby daddy.
^This idiot can’t understand that ANY mutation that allows a species to survive in order to pass on its genes is a beneficial one. He’s already been given several and his best response is “because they were created that way.”
Fucking idiot
Adaptation is gradual....and one adaptation may die out if there is a change in the environment.. The surviving genes drive change.
You really don't understand, do you?
You obviously do not understand what adaptation is. It has nothing to do with mutations. It is the expression of genetic traits that already exist in DNA. These traits are also reversible. So it is not evolution. Educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive. Try reading the link I posted. It was written by a scientist.
evince
Truthmatters
which sometimes random gene mutations make easier due to the environment the individual lives in.
Like blue eyes in colder climates
Genetic traits become increasingly recessive over time if the offspring with the recessive gene do NOT survive to reproduce.
How much education do you have?
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
lots of church
More than you. I asked for a mutation that is beneficial. By that, I mean a random mutation that has actually been observed by geneticists.
print print
DNA and Mutations :
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation.
For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
For example, in the U.S. where people have access to shampoos with chemicals that kill lice, we have a lot of lice that are resistant to those chemicals. There are two possible explanations for this:
continued
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07
Oposable thumbs. Although I am not an atheist.
Believing that evolution exists is not a requirement to be an atheist. You're off to a bad start.
Here are several examples...
https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
What do I win, since you did "bet" I couldn't do it?
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Apolipoprotein AI-Milano gene
low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 gene
Hemoglobin variant HbC gene
Tetrachromatic vision recessive gene
Solute carrier family 30, member 8 gene
TAS2R38, the bitter-taste receptor gene
CETP Low Cholesterol mutation gene
aryl hydrocarbon receptor gene
are just a few I can think of off the top of my head that are occurring now.
Giraffes with the longest necks are more likely to survive and have offspring with longer necks.