Blind animal question.

>>2152571

Evolution isn't that fucking fast. Not to mention that if there's not a gene that allows your salamanders/organisms to live without light in the random population you're going to take your first sample is going to die

You need an extremely large sample (think 10,000 to 100,000) in order to make an experiment like that. And that's small fry in actual evolution in nature.

>>2152571
just inbred the albino ones

File: 96196570e6c52b10bd9478388cb0ec60.jpg (30KB, 564x426px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 564x426px

>>2152577
Salamanders have very fast adaptations, axolotls don't reach adulthood normally, but can be made to reach artificially, same with olms.

http://www.axolotl.org/tiger_salamander.htm

Maybe OP is onto something.

If you have enough, you are free to try, but be serious about it.

Possibly, but it would take far, FAR longer than you'd be alive for.

>>2152642
Salamanders have a fast breeding rate, i should have blind ones in about 20 or so years if i try this

>>2152631
I'm not onto something, i just want to create a blind salamander for the pet trade cause they're all endangered and expensive

>>2152601
In all the generations of salamanders in my pond i never seen an albino, so this would be hard to do

-

If i won't do this how about i do it with endler livebearers? They have faster breed rate than salamanders (1 month as opposed to 1 and 1/2 months) so the mutations may kick in faster

>>2152664
>i should have blind ones in about 20 or so years if i try this
Where exactly did you get this information?

>>2152671
Kek this. OP you're going to have to find some to breed that already have the mutations that you want.

You're going to go full Lamarck if you think keeping them in the dark will make them develop the mutations. Mutations are completely random. Natural selection (or in your case artificial selection) is the non-random process that acts on chance mutations.

>>2152631
An axolotl reaching the end stage of its life cycle is not fucking evolution.

>>2152687
>OP you're going to have to find some to breed that already have the mutations that you want
mutations for albinism and congenital blindness already exist in almost every animal.

In theory they'll become more common in captivity where being pink and blind isn't much of a handicap.

However they won't appear any faster in a dark box than they already do in captive bred animals, just because the same lack of selective pressure in a dark box also exists in a lighted one. That is- the animal isn't more likely to be eaten if it's pink, and it doesn't necessarily need vision to find food when it's being dropped in front of it all the time.

OP's plan would work if he had tens of thousands of years to put into it.

>>2152747
>they'll become more common in captivity
that is the traits will become more common, the genes are already there but only very rarely expressed.

>>2152571
That's not how evolution works. Genetic diversity is not caused by natural selection. Natural selection culls genetic diversity. You will basically be waiting for the mutation to occur (ie. An animal to be born white and with no eyes). Or you'd have to breed lighter colored ones with smaller eyed ones until you got what you want.

File: 1466267526993.jpg (53KB, 622x562px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 622x562px

The contrast of intelligence and stupidity in this thread is kek worthy

File: blind-mexican-cavefish.jpg (41KB, 660x440px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 660x440px

OP again. If I breed a female blind cave fish with a normal male salamander, will the offspring have a chance of evolving into an eyeless salamander when they get older?

>>2153020
>This is not bait,
Are you sure anon

File: the fuck.jpg (53KB, 596x338px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 596x338px

>>2153020
Sure, dude. Go for it.

>>2152687
>implying Lamarck wasn't right