Depends on many things. Could be longer thinner fingers, could be thicker softer finger pads, could be slightly faster reflexes, could be many other things or a combination. All of which could fit within the current normal range of human variation.
Well, the reason is to take responsibility for striving to be impartial on how
And all these has nothing to do with evolution; it doesn’t require any mutations.
Evolution does not require that a change be based on a specific mutation. Normal variation ranges can shift over time based on environmental pressures, which can cause the same sorts of changes over long time periods.
So you are saying that there is no such thing as “surgeon’s hands” or “piano player’s hands” or for that matter “bricklayer’s hands”? That those normal variations are impossible? That is the sort of minor variation that I am talking about.
These so called normal variations are accounted for in the Hereditary science and not Evolution. There’s dominant, co-dominant and weaker genes that can be expressed at any moment in time given the chance. A gene doesn’t become dominant because of external factors or environment.
No.These are externally acquired skills.
OK, so you need to learn more biology. Lungfish have lungs, and can survive for months out of water when their pond dries up in the dry season. Lungfish’ closest living relatives are Coelacanths, which have proto-legs. That is legs and lungs in the same clade: Sarcopterygii. All land tetrapods are descended from a now extinct group of Saccopterygii, the Osteolepiforms.
Less change in the supporting systems than you seem to imagine. Achondroplasia is caused by a single mutation to a single gene. That one mutation changes the size of the limbs, including the bone structure, the musculature, the nervous system, the blood supply, the lymphatic system etc. Your ‘problem’ is not a real problem. I suggest that you read up on Hox genes and how they interact as the body develops.
Where did you get “become dominant” from anything I wrote? And what does dominant or recessive have to do with evolution?
The skills are, but the hand configuration is not. So-called “surgeon’s hands” are hands that are slim with long and slender yet strong fingers. It doesn’t mean that you must have that hand shape to be a surgeon, but it does provide an advantage to a surgeon to have them.
A mudskipper can swim in water. It can also walk (badly) on land. It has a fin adapted for 90% water and 10% land. That gives it the advantage to be able to move from a drying pond to a nearby full pond.
But it gains function an efficiency in other areas. A seal’s flippers are not very efficient for walking on land but are much better at swimming in water. A dog’s legs are much better adapted for walking on land and less well adapted to swimming in water. In both cases the limb can perform two functions, one better than the other. Small changes can make it better at one and less good at the other, moving it in whatever direction gives most advantage. Move the seal’s fins in the direction of better swimming and you get whale fins, which are better at swimming and useless for walking.
There you have it. It is an incomplete and distorted record. In addition, landslides, floods, erosion etc. shuffle bones around and redeposit them in different order. Every time this happens it distorts the record.
I am glad we agree the old evo ideas should be thrown out and replaced with the most recent. It is a matter of time before it all goes into the trash heap.
This is some nice bed time literature and nothing more. Where is the explanation of this supposed shift? what is required for a fully functional lung to develop? A lung is not just on independent organ but it is an organ system that depends on so many other systems for it to function. If it is as a result of a series of mutations, the mutations have to be happening in a lot more genes in a coordinated manner.
Adaptation, why must it be mutation?
You assume the direction. Any transitionals could be defects from the original. The arrow points to devolution.
There must be an increase in fitness in each increment without the corresponding deleterious load put on the organism.
What if the archetype could live on both land and water, but over time devolved so most cannot? Transitionals tell you nothing of the direction, so you have to assume long ages, uniformatarianism and UCA, a foundation built on sand.
Increasing fitness is mostly adaptation but come to think of it, a fully fit fin is the one that functions (propels the fish), there’s no increase in fitness or functionality.
Perfect! Glad you brought it up.
I love all these magical vague tailor made “environmental pressures” that always works out in evolution’s favor .
Ok, please me a give example of an “environmental pressures”.
How about four random offhand possibilities?