3 ms·
It’s enough that there is no decrease in the success of the offspring really. They don’t have to be more successful, just not less.
by napoleongl 2y ago
It’s enough that there is no decrease in the success of the offspring really. They don’t have to be more successful, just not less.
- bhickey 2y agoUnder Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium we wouldn't expect a trait to go from 0.1 to 0.3 in a large population in four generations. This suggests that the trait is subject to selective pressure. There are a lot of potential causes. In my estimation the two most likely causes— First, hitchhiking. The mutation could be near some other beneficial mutation. The closer genes together on a chromosome the less frequently they'll be separated by crossing over events. Second, it could have some other, presently unobserved cardiac effect that reduces infant or maternal mortality.
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoMy joke pet theory is that it helps with mouse control on PC's. We are living our whole life at a desk, it is providing extra endurance for clicking.
- banish-m4 2y agoWe should just evolve ALPS key switches instead of fingertips already. Within a century, we'll look like the Prometheus engineer pilot.
- beacon294 2y agoIIRC we would see any trait spread into its equilibrium point unless selective pressure leaned on the scale. So, it could go from 0.1 to 0.3 simply because it's population equilibrium is there.