I doubt you witnessed this. What you describe is straight from your imagination and your dogma. Nothing more. That’s not to say camouflage doesn’t matter, but it is not the story if you can understand.
Your posts seem to reveal that either genes don’t exist… or that predators are too polite to notice appearances that make it too easy to find you…
Your objections make zero sense.
So then how do you explain the distribution of the allele for black fur in the mouse population?
Anyone can “explain” anything, especially when no experimental proof is required. And that’s the problem with Darwin’s story. You should demand experimental proof. I do.
I will ask again. What mechanisms do you think are responsible for the distribution of the black allele?
I don’t know and neither does anyone else. The story with the eaten moths (or mice) doesn’t fit because:
- No one has seen a mix of colors and then one color being eaten by predators into disappearance (short of gluing dead moths to trees which is not a proper experiment).
- We know that chameleons and all other changing color organisms do so “spontaneously” before predators have a chance to “natural select” them.
So why do you reject natural selection is a possible mechanism?
You may find this recently published paper to be of interest.
You mean a “blind, mindless, and purposeless environmental process” that hypothetically turns random genetic mutations into superior new features enhancing descendants’ survivability and furthermore supposedly turns one life form into another over time?
Because such thing is impossible based on the analysis of the evidence. This has also been discussed extensively at TSZ, sadly with no significant counterarguments (see the Pro/Con notes for most notable of them)
The paper cited is fine, but note that it doesn’t address either of my two points. It’s also interesting that they chose to address some arguments that were supposed to be “invalid” and “disproved”. It also doesn’t explain who ate the green moth or rabbit or mice.
1 Like
Public debate at TSZ has literally zero impact on the progress of science. Why do you think it matters? Public debate usually goes to whoever shouts the loudest or has the best rhetoric, not who is right.
1 Like
Why so dismissive? It’s not about “who wins”, but about exchanging ideas between smart and focused people. In the end it’s about learning something new and maybe getting closer to “the truth”. How is TSZ any different than what you do on this site?
TSZ is public debate. Here we don’t think public debate by non experts is relevant to Scientific progress. We explain mainstream scientific understanding to the curious, and host conversations between experts, but this is not a place for anonymous people to perpetually argue against mainstream science. Even if by some miracle you convinced us, it wouldn’t change a thing. Public debate is not how science progresses.
If you have some of substance to add, you are warmly welcomed to get trained and become a scientist (or other relevant scholar) too. Until then let’s try and avoid ignorant arguments.
3 Likes
This is incredibly arrogant. Wow!
Welcome to the world of science.
2 Likes
It’s just the facts of the world. Didn’t you know?
1 Like
Maybe Schmience. What you guys do here has nothing to do with the scientific method.
No, its not “the facts of the world”. It’s your personal attitude. And it’s very wrong.
Why is it wrong?
1 Like
What we do here is public engagement, not scientific work except in a couple rare (and usually surprising) exceptional cases.
Science does not progress by public debate by non-experts. This is not my personal attitude; this just a readily apparent and nearly self-evident fact. I did not make the rules. This is just the reality we both live in.
2 Likes
No, that is not what I mean. What I am referring to is the tendency for mutations to become fixed in a population when they increase the chances of an individual to have more grandchildren than others in the same population. Natural selection doesn’t turn the mutation into a superior new feature. The mutation starts out as a superior new feature and is then selected for.
Then your analysis is wrong because we can see it happening right in front of us in living populations. Reality proves you wrong.
1 Like
I am winding down here for now. An answer is waiting for you here if you want to continue the discussion over there.
1 Like
Your website is an incoherent aggregation of half-truthes and metaphysical error.
3 Likes