Asklemmy

43893 readers

1568 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

I was just listening to eons in my car and specifically the episode about armored fish, and the thought occurred to me: isn't evolution ultimately selecting for adaptability? (m.youtube.com)

submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It would seem the design that can survive the most extinctions would be the clear winner in the end.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 36 points 9 months ago (3 children)

There's isn't anything doing selecting. A gene mutates and if it stays in the mating cycle enough times to become part of the species as a whole then it's become "selected". That includes things that aren't good for adapting to an environment as well as things that are.

[–] ianovic69@feddit.uk 10 points 9 months ago

This is the correct answer.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

Differential reproductive success does the selecting: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)

This makes me wonder, why are there no 100% albino species considering albinos can be found in every species and can only produce other albino offspring when paired with other albinos?

[–] IonAddis@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Aren't there, in blind cave species where there's no pressure to select for coloring to protect from the sun or to camouflage or display for mates?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If they can only albino offspring when paired with other albinos that indicates it’s a recessive gene.

Recessive genes don’t take over gene pools unless they confer some survival advantage.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And usually albinos are at a distinct disadvantage. Their camouflage doesn't work, or their mating colors aren't present, or they get burned up by the sun, or a hundred other disadvantages depending on the species and environment.

[–] raptir@lemdro.id 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Albino is only used as a term when it's a deviation from the species norm usually. There are all white cave bugs.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

I thought albinism had an objective basis in the genetic code.

[–] Fluke@discuss.online 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They get eaten

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How does being albino automatically mean being eaten (assuming we rule out species that need camouflage)?

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago

First, the vast majority of species depend on camouflage at least somewhat, since there are very few species that are neither predator nor prey. Also, albinism prevents your skin from properly protecting you from the sun. So even then, it is selected against. As other have pointed out though, caves don’t have either of these forces at play—the darkness makes visual camouflage irrelevant and there is no UV light. So there, as you predicted, most species are albino.