been any experimental studies which prove that natural selection is necessary for a healthy population such as certain ideologies assume?
I could imagine that eventually even in a population lacking selection eventually selection will happen because negative traits could potentially build up
Hard to test since it's difficult to have a population with nothing selected for. Anyway, without selection drift would gradually screw up the population.
>drift would gradually screw up the population.
Can you go further with this? In more detail?
i dont know if it's "necessary", but there is no stopping it. a genetic code will either die via genetic disease, be depreciated by new positive traits in another genetic code within the same species, or killed off by another species.
i dont know enough its time for me to stop postering
Not precisely what I was asking but it reminds me of this:
Inbreeding depression is purged in the invasive insect Harmonia axyridis
>Bottlenecks in population size reduce genetic diversity and increase inbreeding, which can lead to inbreeding depression. It is thus puzzling how introduced species, which typically pass through bottlenecks, become such successful invaders. However, under certain theoretical conditions, bottlenecks of intermediate size can actually purge the alleles that cause inbreeding depression. Although this process has been confirmed in model laboratory systems, it has yet to be observed in natural invasive populations. We evaluate whether such purging could facilitate biological invasions by using the world-wide invasion of the ladybird (or ladybug) Harmonia axyridis. We first show that invasive populations endured a bottleneck of intermediate intensity. We then demonstrate that replicate introduced populations experience almost none of the inbreeding depression suffered by native populations. Thus, rather than posing a barrier to invasion as often assumed, bottlenecks, by purging deleterious alleles, can enable the evolution of invaders that maintain high fitness even when inbred.
>tfw have several genetic diseases
I feel like I should do the responsible thing and die alone but at the same time I don't want to be miserable.
What kind my man? I have bipolar or schizophrenia and I'm considering it as well. Besides I come from a broken home and broken homes tend to create broken homes.
Not him, but the gorilla shitposter is right about something for once. Read up on mutational load.
>but the gorilla shitposter is right about something for once.
Please know the difference between orangutan posters and gorilla posters
Psoriasis, Vitiligo, Hyperhidrosis, IBS.
Yes, look at the black nobility and their fucking shit tier creations. The most unnatural selections ever possibly conceived. The entire fucking Pacific ocean is radioactive and going to be mush soon because of the fukushima incident and (((they))) defended and a few owned part of GE. GE makes those fucking reactors.
Is that proof enough humans should chill the fuck out and not be assholes of what OP?
Yes, the short answer is yes.
The thought experiment is simple for this situation. Assume you have a species with no mutation rate and no variation, and is perfectly adapted for their environment (as such, will never be able to adapt through natural selection, as all members will have equal fitness).
If the conditions of the world change slightly, the the environment will change slightly, and the species will become slightly less fit for it (and with no possible variation, will be unable to ever be any better for it). If these changes continue to occur, the species will become less and less fit, until it eventually becomes extinct.
Therefore, a species that does have mutations, and so can respond to selective pressures, will always be dominant.
By definition, a species that does not react to selection (through an inability to mutate) cannot become more fit for its environment, since the ability to mutate cannot evolve (and so the population will die out, making way for one that can mutate to take its place in the ecosystem's niche).
or* what
That is not what I meant
It's called common sense.
>experimental studies which prove
L0Lno
Lrn2science fgt pls
Can you show me experimental studies that prove common sense is both common and makes sense?
Whith the number of offsprings of insects, abd the associated death rate in stable population, selection can work at full rate. You don't even need many survivors.
There's also sexual selection in evolution. Birth control associated with monogamy may have strongly reduced it by making adultery related births less likely. But it may also help to select better mates by separating sex with reproduction, women don't breed children from those from they had only short term fun, except accidental pregnancies for birth control failure they choose to keep, long term relationship fathers are more likely to be selected
And don't forget Darwin awards style selection it always works.
Stupid trials like those in america tends to reduce these risks, but it would be a wise law to limit liability from risks associated with really stupid behavior.
Limiting means used to protect those idiots
Good point
Agreed, this is a point I make myself often