I don't understand evolution. The mutations are totally

>>8431120
the mutations are random
the selection is not

File: white ass meat.jpg (16KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 300x300px

>>8431120
That AT&T bitch is fucking fine, but she can't act to save her life.

>>8431120
>protection against cancer causing radiation is not particularly beneficial in a location where the sun's always out

Also, blacks use albinos in all sorts of rituals, so you can bet your ass it was better to be a darkie.

>>8431534
I think we should start calling em blalbinos

File: we wuz whites and shiiieeet.jpg (92KB, 600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x1000px

>>8431539

>>8431551
Hideous, maybe we should cannibalize the American ones.

>>8431120
Proximal selection variations are not evolution.
It's all the same species.

>>8431120
>I don't understand evolution.
>bcoz low IQ
sorry, cannot help genetic problem

>>8431551
I liked top left in better call saul

>>8431120
>A pale Irish guy can survive fine in Nigeria and a super dark Nigerian will do fine in Ireland.
No. If you consider a distribution [math]\mathcal{P}[/math] which states the probability of survival, it will be a distribution with many variables. The probability of survival is lower for outliers in a community. It's not that outliers must necessarily die, it's simply more probable. Therefore, in the long run, it is more probable that white people survive in Ireland than black people.

Conclusion: Mutations are not perfect for their environment. It is simply more probable that people that happens to have good genes have a higher chance of surviving as opposed to those who have bad genes.

>>8431120
>The mutations are totally random right? So why are they so "perfect" for their environment?

Because the ones that aren't perfect for their environment get weeded out of the genepool, while those that provide an advantage get passed on to the rest of the gene pool.

"What is genetic drift?"

>>8431120
>A pale Irish guy can survive fine in Nigeria and a super dark Nigerian will do fine in Ireland.
>A

Evolution isn't about one specific individual. If a mutation gives an entire population a somewhat better chance at survival, it will eventually be shared across the entire population. Skin color is extremely useful in different climates.

>>8431709
>good genes
>bad genes

>>8432073
Where "good genes" = genes with higher probability of survival into the future
"Bad genes" = genes less probable to survive into the future as compared to "good genes"

>>8431120
That's an interesting point. I guess if they really were totally random, then we would expect to see a random distribution of organisms ranging from perfectly suited to their environment to absolutely unsuited to their environment.

Another thing I've wondered about evolution is how mutations can be beneficial at all. I mean, think about a bird/dinasore growing wings for example. Even if the organism had the mutation of growing wings, how would it know what to do with them? How could the wings be beneficial to the organism if it didn't even know how to use them? They would just weigh it down and be a bad mutation in the end.

>>8432142
>Even if the organism had the mutation of growing wings, how would it know what to do with them? How could the wings be beneficial to the organism if it didn't even know how to use them? They would just weigh it down and be a bad mutation in the end.
Not him but something else I would like to add is that for wings to make sense, lots of other subsystems have to exist simultaneously and work together to enable flight.
So what the hell?

>>8432142
>I guess if they really were totally random, then we would expect to see a random distribution of organisms ranging from perfectly suited to their environment to absolutely unsuited to their environment.
There would be... if the environment didn't kill off more of the ones that were unsuitable. If this is an interesting point to you then you have absolutely no understanding of evolution. Or you're trolling.

>Even if the organism had the mutation of growing wings, how would it know what to do with them? How could the wings be beneficial to the organism if it didn't even know how to use them? They would just weigh it down and be a bad mutation in the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_avian_flight

tl;dr wings slowly adapted from muscle groups that were already being used for similar activities to flying. And changes in the instinctual use of muscles is itself an evolutionary process.

But not all mutations require conscious action of the animal, so even if this was a conundrum it doesn't even show that mutations cannot be beneficial at all. For example, a mutation which lowers the risk of breast cancer is clearly beneficial and doesn't require action.

>>8432154
over hundreds of millions of generations, a few subsystems hanging on long enough for everything to work together is pretty likely

>>8432154
People often overlook that such subsystems could have had benefits by themselves for purposes besides the one they eventually came to serve.

>>8432159
>>8432164
I get what you're saying, but it sounds like pseudoscience. Anyone using arguments like this in theoretical physics would be laughed out of the room but somehow it's OK because it's evolution.

>>8432168
Why exactly would they be laughed out of the room? Evolution has a massive amount of evidence for it and is the only theory that is consistent with all the data. It's as well accepted by scientists as general relativity.

>>8432155
Oh yeah, I see. natural selection restricts the distribution so you only see organisms that are well-adapted, because the poorly-adapted ones don't survive to reproduce.

>>8432154
And this guy >>8432155 just pointed out that the whole thing doesn't pop up all at once, it's gradual, so you don't need to worry about all the things coming up at once.

>>8432105
But the future can play out into many different scenarios.

So I guess, genes are "good" or "bad" for different environments

>>8431120
>what is the founder effect

>>8431120
It seems that way because we are biased observers from inside the system, after some 4 billion years of Earth's existence. As >>8431124 said, the mutations occur randomly but the selection is not. We're pretty late to the party here and our environment has had a lot of time to select for the success of highly specialized organisms. It's important to remember that evolution is extremely slow, and there really aren't instances where an organism suddenly "blips" into existence and is unfit for the environment before being extincted. Complex organisms developed very slowly in their environments.

With regards to your example, it is pretty beneficial actually to have sun-sensitive skin. It's thought that the mutation of white skin arose and was selected for in areas with less-intense/less frequent sunlight, so that humans could synthesize vitamin D from light.

>>8432173
>Why exactly would they be laughed out of the room?
Because of arguments like
>a few subsystems hanging on long enough for everything to work together is pretty likely
This is baseless. Just because something has a really really really long time to happen, doesn't mean it will.

>>8432186
>This is baseless. Just because something has a really really really long time to happen, doesn't mean it will.
That's not what he said. It means it's more likely to happen. If you flip a coin 10 times it's very unlikely you'll get 10 heads in a row. If you flip it 10 million times, it's very likely.

>>8432186
>This is baseless
except we can observe the results in nature you dingy

File: 1477160178546.jpg (73KB, 702x1024px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 702x1024px

>So why are they so "perfect" for their environment?

Because you weren't there to witness the hundreds of thousands to millions of years of animals and man stumbling around like idiots with half baked adapted features getting themselves killed for stupid reasons.

You are literally witnessing animals and man at arguably their "best" yet.

>>8431120
Seem like you are ignoring all the species that are pretty much bound to fail. Look at the big panda; almost nothing about him makes him "perfect" for surviving

>>8432219
>WERE YOU THERE
not an argument, ken

>>8432203
>except we can observe the results in nature you dingy
Yes, but we're trying to explain how life got where it is so that arguments doesn't fly.

>>8432235
Why not? You know, that there is a shit ton of evidence for evolution, right?

>>8432237
I'm not calling evolution into question, I'm just saying we can't explain away things like what we've been talking about by saying they were bound to happen because of the large timescales involved.

>>8432244
Except, when we exactly know, that certain things tend to evolve over large timescales.
ot take the point of this guy:
>>8432193

Why exactly is it a bad argument to say something is no surprise, when it statistically is indeed bound to happen over a large timescale?

>>8432231

>implying a good portion of evolution's methodology isn't basically "WERE YOU THERE" tier models

In all seriousness though the planet we live on has danger lurking around every corner. Those dangers act as one of numerous innate filters for mutations.

The skin discrepancy op brings up exits because uv radiation isn't evenly distributed on the planet. There's also the issue that man did not always have clothes to protect themselves from the elements. So unlike today where people with light skin can survive in such climates those in the past were more vulnerable and either died or were alternatively selected out due to dark skin not blemishing from the sun as much or didn't make it so apparent.

>>8432258
>statistically is indeed bound to happen over a large timescale
Can you refer me to some sort of statistical analysis of evolution? How would you even model that mathematically?

>>8432294
Well, I concede that "statiscally" might be a bit of a misleading term, but my point was that evolution isnt completely random. There are patterns and an above zero probabilty for animals to have wings. We know this, because throughout history animals turned up having wings. Many of them evolved independent from each other. Of course, there isnt really a way to analyse this in a strict mathematic fashion, but our observations strongly indicate that this isnt some unpredictable oddity.

>American ones
>the ones
>poorly-adapted ones
just fckn stop already

>>8433297
what?

>>8433297
yo what are you talking about

>>8433297
you are wrong

File: 1466470130321.gif (1MB, 320x213px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x213px

>>8431120
>The mutations are totally random right? So why are they so "perfect" for their environment?
Pay attention in school

>>8431120
>A pale Irish guy can survive fine in Nigeria
Have you ever been sunburned? Shit sucks, plus cancer.

>>8431455

You know they don't hire actors and actresses on the basis of how they perform sometimes

>>8431120

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

>>8431120
Firt off learn what is meiosis and crossign-over
Next thing you should do is start using your brain.