Wow. In a world dominated by Darwinism, it’s amazing that anyone dares to tell this story:
If you had braved the jungles of China’s Fujian province in the early 20th century, various accounts say you could have witnessed a stunningly unexpected animal: a blue tiger. These tigers were described as “marvelously beautiful” with bodies “a deep shade of Maltese, changing into almost deep blue on the under parts.” As late as the 1950s, hunters reported spotting their blue hairs alongside the traditional orange fur of other South China tigers on trails. Then the blue tigers disappeared. The last reported sighting was in 1953, and blue tigers were soon the stuff of legends, with not so much as a preserved hide to prove they ever existed. It is tempting to think the cats’ blueness was tied to some flaw that left them unable to compete with their bright orange kin. But it’s more likely their bizarre coats had nothing to do with their extinction; it was simply bad luck that the color arose in a small population that continued to shrink.
Christie Wilcox, “How Neutral Theory Altered Ideas About Biodiversity” at Quanta
So it wasn’t a strong signal but it was a signal.
Imagine all the theories that Darwinians could indulge in as to why blue tigers are more fit…
I remember a U of T prof, Larry Moran, who used to comment at this site, saying he thought neutral theory made more sense. He’s probably right.
DNA just codes for RNAs. It doesn’t matter how much genetic change there is. Changing genetics an genes will never be able to produce the diversity of life. DNA is not destiny- it does not determine biological form. So it’s back to the drawing board for evolutionists as their current thinking is totally lacking any substance and sense.
Or it could just be some kind of algae or bacteria. Without any pelts there’s no way to tell.
“Wow. In a world dominated by Darwinism, it’s amazing that anyone dares to tell this story about genetic drift.”
Wow, indeed and nonsense to boot. When I was an undergrad in evolutionary biology and ecology in the early 70s, genetic drift was already well understood and routinely part of the evolutionary biology and ecology curriculum as one of the numerous types of selection leading to speciation. It was integral to both population dynamics and population genetics.
Genetic Drift, and/or the ‘Neutral Theory”, is the ‘educated’ way for Darwinists to honestly admit that they were completely wrong about natural selection being the quote unquote ‘designer substitute’ that they had originally envisioned It to be,,,.
The mathematics of Population Genetics itself has simply not been kind to Darwinian claims in the least. In fact, because of the “waiting time problem”, Darwinists were forced to cast natural selection, Charles Darwin’s supposed ‘designer substitute’, by the wayside as the supposed explanation for the ‘appearance of design’, (R. Dawkins), that we see pervasively thought life,,,
With Natural selection being tossed aside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and also by empirical evidence itself), as the explanation for the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from mathematics as an outright falsification for their theory, as they should have done, but are instead now reduced to arguing, via ‘Neutral Theory’, that the ‘appearance of design’ that we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all.
To call such a move on the part of Darwinists ‘disingenuous’ would be a severe understatement.
Ugh I don’t normally agree with the dude tagged ChUcKdArWiN
But I to had issues with that comment as genetic drift is very commonly taught and has been for many years