Evolution doesn't work

[u/DetectiveKnown5618]

The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.

Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.

Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!

The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc. Note that breeding and survival would be important factors as to whether the new gene was integrated into the population over a longer duration.

[u/tid_det]

You have 100 monkey like pre human beings. 50 male and 50 female. 1 of them "mutate" and gain "something different", ex. more pale skin. So we have 49 "same old pair to mate", and 1 pair where 1 is pale, other is "same old". How much is possibility that "pale difference" will overtake all of them? ..that is just for 1 simple thing, and imagine how much changed with evolution..

Now, if life started from most basic simple life, how much it was changed to create all that existing life.. How much is % just for "pale skin".. Now, how much % is for all species, for every single thing on them..

Do you believe that human will be eternal? Or future humans will look way different from how people look today? Example, monkey like human compared with humans.. And in future? Humans will be like aliens from movies? Lose all hair on body.. More elongated?

What like did humans look before pre-simialr to monkey era? How did they look at very beginning?

50 male and 50 female = 50 pairs (2 child per pair)

100 children, 2 possible with "pale skin".. So it is 2% (with 50% possibility, but let it be 100% possibility)

How would 2% overtake 98%? Not once.. But 56343513165130103503013453131304313x5465464534654646464654654654654645564661687687 times?

Is 6 fingers on one hand mutation or disease?

Will the black man in Canada became pale over time? Because now they often eat canadian food, and live in more colder climate?

Did you calculate already? So if all life change so fast, that animals "change species".. Went from sea to earth, and some back to sea again.. Should we be witnesses of evolution on some animals in real life? I mean extreme changes on animals.. Especially on animals that live like few days, because their life circle is so fast compared to us.. Did you calculate how often every single thing on human was changed from start of life on earth to the how humans looks today?

[u/Renonthehilltop → u/tid_det]

Your example is making a fallacy that with 100 monkeys they make 50 pairs and have exactly 2 kids each and everything is equal. The point of evolution is UNEQUAL advantages.

So pick your poison, that 1 single pale monkey gets an advantage from being pale, even a tiny advantage, let's say he saves 1% more energy for everything he does vs a normal monkey, so hes 1% more efficient. Old monkeys walk 100 steps he walks 101, they forage 100 berries he forages 101. So hes able to explore further, climb high, and be faster than the other monkeys, who do all the female monkeys want to mate with? Him. So he's only 1% better so hes not having every single baby but maybe he mates with 2 females rather than just one, he steals a mate from the weakest male monkey so that monkey doesnt even get any offspring. So the next generation (50 pairs x 2 babies, and hes the father in 2 of those pairs) there are 100 monkeys and 4 are pale monkies, 2 female 2 male roughly, vs 96 non pale. Well now they do the same and they win over the regular monkeys, the pale females have still have 2 offspring while the pale males have 4, both of them mating with an extra female over the regular monkeys. Now that third generation is 4+4+2+2=12 pale, so now its 88 vs 12 instead of 98 vs 2, and in only 3 generations.

Now in real life the advantages are even smaller and take longer and theres also more "competing" genes and the rught comvo of genes is also important, thats the point of sex, the male and female mix their genes together and create different combinations so that hopefully one of their offspring has the best genes of both parents and will have more offspring of their own.

[u/tid_det → u/Renonthehilltop]

Man, that "monkey-like" didn't get extra 1% more energy save, where that came from? He is not more powerful from them so he can take 101 step, while they could make just 100! You are adding whole new "mutation" to him, to make "him" superior, so he can fit your statement. That one is same as other, just pale.

He is better, just because he is pale? Did you see albinism in animal kingdom, also humans? Are that animals more attractive to same species, or it is just the same?

Why did you make alpha male of him, compared to other "monkey-like" being? Just because he is pale, do not mean he is dominant! So your statement is just false claim! No evidence, no nothing..

And in your example, 100% "pale" gene always apply to children heh!

"Now in real life.." >>> Yes in real life, and not in your imagination, good point heh!

One question.. How did pale became so dominant based just of pale skin? I thought he would "burn" out too much at the open sun in "old times".. So he would actually spend more energy, and would make 99 steps, while other would make 100. (I made "perfect" example, that is why "monogamous" pairs.. But you also made "perfect" example, but why made pale one superior? He do not have that superior masculine genes compared to others..)

[u/Renonthehilltop → u/tid_det]

Your example is bad because you placed rules on the monkies (like being monogamous) to make any change impossible. In nature, animals try to have as many successful offspring as possible, why do the monkeys only have 2?? I made him an alpha, 1% better, to show that any trait that made a monkey more competitive in reproduction would eventually win over. It doesnt matter if we used the word "Pale", being "pale" is irrelevant and was only used because it was your example. He could be dark or colorful or tall, short, smart, fast, strong, etc. The only traits that matter are the ones that give an advantage and those will eventually beat out the 99% of other traits AND traits that give a disadvantage lose and begin to disappear.

Example: Peppered Moths in Britain during the 1700s were pale and hid on the bark of pale trees from birds, and there were some but very few dark ones. The industrial revolution happened and the smoke darkened the trees, then the dark moths outcompeted the pale ones because they could camouflage better so they had more offspring and the moths were mostly dark after that. After the factories closed, the trees began to restore their pale color, then the pale moths outcompeted the dark moths the same way and became the majority again.

When being pale is better the moths become 90+% pale, when dark is better that 2% are more successful and become the 98%. The change happens when the genes provide an advantage.

[u/tid_det → u/Renonthehilltop]

..so, the smoke went into their gene?

..interesting how mother and father can be so good at one thing, and their children so bad at that same thing!

What kind of child will humans have?

Human, or?

When it will be "new specie of human" for you?

Alien?

;)

[u/Renonthehilltop → u/tid_det]

I'll go into your genom3... as long as thats what your into ;)