if we talk about evolution, then which type of selection would be the prime cause of evolution?
- geezerLv 75 months ago
- CRRLv 75 months ago
Natural Selection results in a change in allele frequencies in populations over time, and this is microevolution.
- Gray BoldLv 75 months ago
Natural selection is the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population. Basically, those with desirable traits have a better chance of attracting mates and creating offspring (this is known as sexual selection). Those with less desirable traits attract fewer mates. Because of this, attractive traits continue within the species and non attractive traits eventually fade away. There are other factors also. Strong individuals with certain variants of a trait (beneficial traits) may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. In essence, any phenotype (observable characteristic) that gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population.
- Elaine MLv 75 months ago
Sexual selection in the wild.
In domestic animals it's purebred inbreeding.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- ob1knobLv 75 months ago
There are many environmental changes (climate, new predator around...) that species adapt to.
"Prime cause"? I would say "eat or feed"
Either you are able to reach (higher leaves thanks to a slightly longer neck than your flock-mate) or chase (if you are a hunting carnivore) your food,
or you manage not to be eaten (run fast, hide, fly, be poisonous...).
If the environment is reasonably safe from predators, sexual selection becomes the prime cause. the one who seduces more hens, not necessarily the strongest, spread his genes.
This leads to bright colors, melodious song...
- Anonymous5 months ago
They lied to you. Do you really believe that if you eat a fish, you are eating an ancestor? Fish eggs are still fish eggs and chicken eggs are still chicken eggs. There's nothing in between.
The word 'fossil' means 'dug up'. The word 'dinosaur' came from two Greek words that mean 'terrible lizard'... a word made up in the 1800s to describe reptile fossils.
Under the forces of EXTREME PRESSURE everything that was engulfed in mud during the world-wide flood turned into stone.
For about a year and a half silica (mostly) permiated plant and animal tissue. The mud also became stone as it compressed under the weight of billions of tons of water.
Stone cannot be dated.
When a fish or an animal dies it rots, turns to dust or gets eaten... it does not turn into a fossil. Every fossil in the world is the result of the flood. Period.
Before the flood everything lived ten times longer - that's why tusks, antlers, fangs, trees and reptiles grew huge. I used to work with reptiles; among many things I learned about them was that they NEVER stop growing as long as they live.
Pre-flood the air had 50% more oxygen in it. Like a hyperbaric chamber, everything lived longer because of the air quality. We know this because we have air samples from before the flood; extracted from bubbles trapped in fossilized sap (amber). Adam lived until he was 930. Noah was 600 when he built the Ark (Google Noah's Ark Turkey - a tourist attraction since the 1970's A.D.).
Believing in lies about evolution makes you guilty of making God out to be a liar. This is spiritual treason.
You've heard of bacteria 'evolving'? No such thing: simply, the hardier bacteria were never killed off by the antibiotic in the first place. The weaker bacteria were. All that's left is 'resistant' bacteria. They were never subject to antibiotics to begin with. They never 'evolved'.
PS. If God wants to raise children for Abraham from the stones He can do it. He doesn't need any of us. He can change what is in the blink of an eye.... He doesn't need millenia.
- ZirpLv 75 months ago
The kind that causes individuals that have one phenotype to have more offspring than those with another phenotype - and those phenotypes have to be caused by different alleles for the same gene
- CowboyLv 65 months ago
It's natural selection.....
- Anonymous5 months ago
Evolution is heritable change. When the environment does not change, then natural selection would in most cases eliminate mutations. Mutatoins cause changes.If mutations are eliminated by natural selection because they are harmful, then there is little or no change even though natural selection continues to operate. Scientists call this punctuated equilibrium because they observe that during a species' life time, they often see little change and then it may become extinct. In fact species that change little over vast stretches of time are known, and they are referred to as living fossils. A good example of a living fossil is the coelacanth. They were thought to have become extinct, and the living ones that have been discovered are very similar to fossils that lived during the age of the dinosaurs. The type of natural selection that eliminates mutations is known as negative selection or normalizing selection. Individuals that have a particular trait as the result of mutation are eliminated. For example, a falcon that has a mutation making it unable to fly will die when it tries to leave the nest since it will crash to the ground or water below.
When the environment changes, what were once good genes are not as good and they may even become bad genes. When that happens, some mutations that were normally eliminated may actually be by chance better as they may fit the new environment better. If so, then natural selection will result in the retention and even increase in the percentage of individuals that have the mutation. And if most individuals now have the new mutations but not the old genes, then evolutionary change has happened. The type of natural selection that results in change is referred to as directional selection or positive selection. Individuals that have a particular trait are more likely to survive than those that do not. They are positively selected, instead of being eliminated by negative selection. For example, when ostriches evolved from a flying bird, the first ostriches that evolved the loss of flight are more likely to survive because the flight muscles use a lot of energy. Losing the flight muscles means a bird can survive without eating as much food, or it can grow bigger on the same amount of food, since it is not wasting energy feeding the flight muscles. So, even though the mutation may be similar (loss of flight muscle), it can be either adaptive or deleterious, depending on the environment. Loss of flight can be devastating to some birds that rely on flight, but it can be very helpful to a a bird that finds it unnecessary and even wasteful of energy to have flight muslces because it does not need to fly or if it had evolved to be so heavy that it can no longer fly.
Natural selection does not automatically favor one trait above other traits. The particular trait that is favored depends on the environment and the organism's lifestyle.
- SmegheadLv 75 months ago
"Prime cause" is not a meaningful phrase. Do you mean most common? Most influential? And what types of selection do you want compared?