"Natural selection" is it for real ?

[cyber_indian]

Can somebody explain me how is it possible to have on one hand "Natural selection", on the othrer hand knowing that every possible gene has it's "unique number" ?

[Skye]

What do you mean by unique number?

[cyber_indian]

Getting the 3codons before ATG and the 3codons after the TGA, together makes uniquie indentifyer for every gene.

[Mokele]

I already addressed this: randomness is sufficient. Those 6 codons have a total of over 68 billion possible combinations via randomness. Given that your sample size is in the mere millions, you would not expect to see replicates very often. In fact, specifically, if you have 10 million genes, there only a 1 in 6800 chance that you'll find two identical genes.

 

Seriously, you need to back off from this little idea of yours and look at the evidence.

 

Moved to Psuedoscience, where it belongs.

 

Mokele

[RyanJ]

All you need to do is premote the features you want and allow them to reporduce and deny the animals with the features you don't want the ability to reproduce. Over time you get all the features you want with none of the ones you don't.

 

So in one word to say if Natural selection is real: YES!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Shegan]

Natural selection is not based on "Only the strong survive". It has much to do with luck and circumstances.

[swansont]

Natural selection is not based on "Only the strong survive". It has much to do with luck and circumstances.

 

Yes, that's true. But how is that not selection? Measured over a population, fitness due to some characteristic will give a bias on top of luck/randomness/circumstances.

[Mokele]

Actually, it's not true. Natural selection is a purely deterministic process, without an element of luck or chance. The effects of randomness in evolution are termed "genetic drift". The two interact to a great degree, but the mechanisms are separate, technically. But genetic drift alone is still technically considered evolution.

 

Mokele