Give me one example of an individual animal evolving - IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED !

With lots of animals, yes. With humans, not so much.

 

humans too, the cultural thing came after it's a social construct not an instinctive natural behaviour...when not forced women pick their own mates just like animals, males have no say in the matter...

 

In the grand scheme of things, yeah, but how often were women free to choose their mate? Even in nature, I feel like male mammals force themselves upon females a lot of the time.

 

From:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Main page:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

 

I wouldn't define it that way. From what I've read, the light eye colors, the blues, grays, and greens, offer no survival value but they do make a difference in sex selection. It doesn't enhance fitness.

 

I believe long ago there were no animals, no birds, no people...just primordial muck. Over millions/billions of years things happened to allow evolution of this muck into other stuff. Why doesn't all living life on Earth today look the same...for example why don't we have just birds? Why do we have fish, birds, animals and people? I'm guessing because each group ascended from the muck in different environments with different challenges and different needs. Over millions/billions of years these groups adjust in order to survive. Maybe if you visit Earth again in 5 billion years, all sea life might have evolved to land life? And yes along the way with the survival instinct for insatiable sex, there was selective breeding within the species and sometimes outside of the species, which creates some variations. I'll suggest that if average temperatures increase 5% or more, given enough time, you'll see human's skin evolve in order to deal with the dryness and radiation, skin pigment will change, grow more hair, etc.

Obviously you have no regard for fossil evidence which clearly shows how things today are very different from long ago...

 

I'm somewhat remembering a joke from many decades ago; Little Johnny and little Jane are playing in the school yard, when a very cocky little Johnny exposes his boy-hood and proclaims 'with this I'm king of the world'. Little Jane lifts her dress to expose her girl-hood and says 'that's no big deal, with what I got I can get as many of those as I want'...

 

No science course ever taught that individuals evolve. It has always been taught that species evolve. The picture you show was about species not individuals. And evolution is not solely determined by attractiveness to a mate. Survival to time when mating can occur is more important. To wit the old but true "survival of the fittest" where survival means genetic survival.

 

That would only be true if eye color was determined by a single gene and not by genes that are linked to other characteristics.

 

true it could be tied to something else....when russian researchers domesticated the fox too see long the process would take, they bred for behaviour...as the the fox became more dog like other unexpected physical traits accompanied domestication...their tails curled and the fur changed colour/pattern.

 

Very often, courtship is common...so common we take note of societies that do not follow the natural order...females choosing their partner is the norm...

 

Irrelevant since it wouldn't be visible unless all of those genes were already present in the individual.

 

You are becoming somewhat confused. Your original posting said that eye color had to be a factor in choosing a mate since it had no survival value. My post said that would only be true if Eye color was determined by a single gene and not linked to a group of genes that determine a trait that has survival value.
Wheather or not a gene is already present in an individual has no relevance to any discussion on evolution. Obviously if someone has a trait they already that have the combination of genes that cause the trait.

 

While the survival value of some traits like blue eyes or blond hair may be questionable, they can also act as indicators of an individuals quality in other, less obvious ways. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519375901113

Research also shows that many traits we find attractive in a mate are subconsciously based on biological factors. http://www.livescience.com/7023-rules-attraction-game-love.html

 

Hmm... I don't think I'm confused. I'm arguing that eye color is a sex selection trait, and you are arguing it isn't because you are stating more than one gene is required?

Most traits are probably multiple gene traits, so I'm not sure why that would make a difference. A trait requiring multiple genes would have an individual that had them before the trait would manifest itself. So a person could have some genes for a particular trait, but would have no effect on fitness or sex selection since the trait wouldn't be obvious. Or maybe I'm not understanding your point.

 

unless we know what other traits are tied to blue eyes we won't know the advantages are, but it could be just sexual selection and genetic drift...we are attracted to what is different because that's genetically speaking good for the species, no doubt that first blue eyed male or female received a lot of attention from the brown eyed members of the opposite sex, genetic drift would entrench it...

 

Eye color is linked to an entire series of genes which is why certain eye colors are more prevalent in some races than in others. Many of those genes and racial characteristics are a result of factors which influence survival other than mate selection. Races with all colors of eyes appear to be doing just fine so my guess is eye color has no effect on genetic survival.

Actually I have never known anyone whose primary reason fo selecting a mate was eye color. And even if both parents have the same eye color the children can be of different eye color so it is not a genetic trait that is passed down.

 

Now you're saying eye color isn't a genetic trait? OK I guess I never understood what point you are trying to make, since it sounds like you've switched arguments.

 

I can't help you. Get an entry level college text on genetics.

 

Bacteria is a great example.. plants are another example....

but how about this...

"California scientists discover mouse-like mammal related to elephants"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/06/27/us-usa-mammal-africa-idUKKBN0F203M20140627


.

 

My favorite fantasy involves troglodytes. Could you keep mentioning them? Please? Troglodyte girdles from the 70's. Granny white panties, also.

Seriously? Nothing under this sun is a concern. We don't know nothing, we don't see nothing, we are Sargent Shultz.

 

And it will tell me that eye color isn't a genetic trait?

 

or What's become the classic example land dwelling mammals evolving into whales...

 

This seems to be a very roundabout way of pointing out that sexual selection plays a role in evolution. Certainly it does, but it's hardly the only contributor to the process.

I don't know about the job scientists have done in explaining this rather complex theory to people, but I think the primary driver for belief in creationism remains religious bias, as well as a certain personal desire to be something higher/better than a 'mere animal'.

 

I'm afraid that is wrong. It is a well known fact that eye colour is a genetically inherited trait.

You can read more at http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/R1/R9.full