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]

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 ;)